Re: [ALSC-Forum] Fwd: role of At-Large - At-large Organizing Committee

[Jefsey Morfin]

On 11:47 23/04/02, Esther Dyson said:
>A couple of points:
>The ccTLDs *should* be in ICANN's room (as should any other 
>TLDs)....because the policies - though limited - need to operate 
>worldwide, as the Internet does.  And with luck there will be some more 
>gTLDs that are less US-centric.

depends on what you name the room. BTW the image with ccTLDs not in the 
same room was yours.
The ICANN is managing the Jon Postel's private network, with the ARAP/IANA 
community legitimacy. Interfacing with the ccNETs with their Local Internet 
Community legitimacy. This is a small part of the TCP/IP networks world and 
a small part of the International data network.  ICANN is the frog which 
wants to become a bull. There are several othe rname spaces: Govnet to 
start with that ICANN willl never manage, we can all acept that. There is 
".eu" too. There is China. There are the Open Systems and my Intlnet 
project. There is Real Names, AOL, MS. There are all the nomenclatures like 
ISSN, ISBN, etc... and to start with there is the ITU/T with the telephone 
numeric namnig plan.

At the same time there are the physical addressing plans: IP, IPv4+, IPv6 
(?), tel, X.121, radio, TV, etc.
Now, will there be any gTLD needed? I do not know, but I know that Verisign 
will have to find its survival somewhere in the years to come and we have 
to help it.

>Nice points about what is political. thanks!
>Now look below for a few more comments if you want.
>Esther
>
>At 08:38 AM 4/17/2002, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
>>Dear Internet @large Members,
>>We are closing on serious matters now with the ITU/T letter and Esther 
>>Dyson's evaluation.
>>BTW, who is the ITU/T Member of the BoD?
>There is no specific ITU member of the BOD.

I know, but someone should be close to the ITU/T from what the ITU/T says?

>>On 08:49 17/04/02, Esther Dyson said:
>>>>Come up with something that most of the parties can agree/compromise 
>>>>on, and all of us can live with it.  That structure should meet the 
>>>>existing tests of representing a diversity of views and interests, 
>>>>including geographic diversity, it should fulfill the various other 
>>>>requirements of the MoU, and it should consist of members from the 
>>>>private (non-government) sector.
>>
>>This is probably not acceptable to the Govs as such. The ITU/T 
>>proposition therefore seems positive IF  we can design a mechanism which 
>>makes sure that the spirit of your request is carved in the building 
>>stones to the point that the system falls apart if it is not respected. I 
>>think we can do that.
>
>This is not actually true. Many of the governments would be very happy 
>with a *working* ICANN - with proper representation/public accountability.

I frankly do notthink so. That was may be true in the "toy" Internet as 
wuold say Jim Glemnig. But we are now considering economies, national 
security, digital divide, international affairs, etc.

<nsip>
>Good points!!  But ICANN's rooms *do* include the ccTLDs - if the ccTLDs 
>will only join. But ICANN does not need to decide air pressure in the 
>rooms; only the terms governing  - say - the air locks between the rooms, 
>so that one room's air does not leak into another's.  (to mix metaphors a 
>little!)  We need interoperability, but we do not need the *same* terms in 
>each TLD.  And FWIW, I'm sure the *g*TLDs would welcome an ICANN that sets 
>fewer terms rather than more.

To keep your image .. the ICANN has not to decide anything. It has to 
concert with the ccTLDs abuot the terms of their relations. 
Interoperability is built-in as long as there is no netwrok name collision 
and TCP/IP compatibilty. This is why we must concert.

The mistake of the ICANN was not only to be a frong wanting to be a bull, 
but also to act as a bull.

>>True. if it was "part of". Not, if it was hosted by the ITU/T in such a 
>>way ITU/T could only help and structurally not interfere. see below. This 
>>means the ITU/T *joining* in an ITU/T hosted structure, not controling.
>
>I can't see how this would work, nor would it solve the basic issue of 
>getting all the TLDs together to set *only* those policies that actually 
>need to be set jointly.

The real world works that way. This is the way we managed the naming space 
and related issues for years. This is the waythe ITU/T works. This is 
obviusly the problem of the ICANN which reivented a squared wheel. You did 
not direct a network, you concert to serve it and you aviod collisions.

The only problem is structural. The ITU/T is such a committee. It must not 
be seen as a supercommittee including Internet people, but one of the 
naming space (telephone) helping the groupe of the other name spaces (the 
easiest way is rotating chair).


>To the extent that AL members want to self-organize rather than rely on 
>ICANN, great!  But they need someone to listen to them to be and to feel 
>effective.  That now seems to be happening with the board's acceptance of 
>the At-Large project... which we should take advantage of...

The @large must be locally organized. They must include their Govs. This is 
something that the ICANN could have made enacted very easily instead of 
trying to force it through Mike's letter to Govs. Mikes and Lynn's ideas 
are not wing, but the way to enforce them is unrealistic.

>It does not claim to represent. It should *listen* and pass on what it 
>hears to the board.  if the idea below comes to pass, the ALOC should 
>communicate with whatever emerges.

I am afraid you will never get the 771 people assembled today to listen. 
Already to listen to them will be a problem. You need to have delagates. 
 From local communities.

>>1. the creation of an open International Concertation Committee on Naming 
>>and Numbering Plans by the ITU/T - ywe sections : one on naming 
>>(brainware) and one on numbering (hardware).
>
>Call this ICANN....  (but without the ITU/T).

No. The ICANN is for a part of the TCP/IP nets. Or the frog will blow up.

it nearly did already.