- EURO-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [EURO-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published
by Dominik Filipp June 20, 2008

June 20, 2008

JFC Morfin wrote: > Now, the question is: "is it good for the Community > that the BoD acts as an audit and a wisepeople council > rather than a leader?". There are cons and pros. > jfc For me, definitely yes. Leaders are usually necessary in communities of people not strong enough to take responsibility for their own affaires. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of JFC Morfin Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:58 PM To: Discussion for At-Large Europe; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published At 20:57 19/06/2008, Dominik Filipp wrote: >A ridiculous, upside down logic. I would personally recommend that >At-Large refuse the draft document as a whole due to a false logic it >is based upon. I am not sure this is ridiculous: this is a very good account of the way ICANN decisions are taken. As consensuses prepared by the Staff: france@large observed it is also the case at ALAC (through its accreditation process). Now, the question is: "is it good for the Community that the BoD acts as an audit and a wisepeople council rather than a leader?". There are cons and pros. jfc _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lis ts.icann.org Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

1 0

Your support for the Staff's “Improvement”-Survey needed
by Wolf Ludwig June 19, 2008

June 19, 2008

Dear All You will have received At-Large Staff’s (Frederic Teboul’s) recent email asking some questions of you as a member of the At-Large community and some of you have already replied. As there have been a few questions about the message, the Staff would like to provide some additional information. Firstly, we want to emphasize that this effort is meant to be a collaborative process – we are asking you to provide information so that we can combine your answers with others in the At-Large community and create a summary of the community’s views on how its involvement in ICANN can be better supported. We will share the aggregated input with you, along with an analysis of the trends that we see, and our thoughts on how we might collectively – Staff and community - respond to the Regional At-Large Organizations’ needs to support greater involvement in ICANN. After community discussion and concurrence, an Action Plan will be publicly posted and implemented. To be clear, the questions you have been asked to respond to relate only to the At-Large community and its involvement in ICANN. To avoid any confusion, we are re-stating the questions below, and would appreciate receiving your thoughts. This exercise is part of Staff's ongoing effort to better serve the At-Large community. It is not related to the completely separate and independent “ALAC Review” currently being conducted under the auspices of the Board as part of their process for reviewing all ICANN structures. We know you are all busy and that you volunteer for your At-Large group and ICANN in your spare time. On reflection, we therefore think the original deadline was overly ambitious. It would be a great help if we could get a good set of responses on or before the end of the Paris ICANN meeting (25th June). This will allow us to move on to the next steps in the process mentioned above in due course. That said, of course the kind of input we seek in this short questionnaire is always welcome – we are always glad to hear your thoughts, concerns and ideas. For your convenience, below you will find a restated set of the same questions. 1. What issues being debated in ICANN do you believe are the most important to your RALO? 2. How can we help make the time you spend on ICANN issues as valuable and efficient to you as possible? 3. What challenges and opportunities do you see for your RALO and for At-Large more generally (in the context of ICANN work)? 4. How interaction between and within RALOs be increased? 5. What are the top three things you would like your RALO to achieve? 6. What are the top three things you believe ICANN Staff could do to help your RALO? Please try to find some time to answer the questions -- short responses are welcome as well. Many thanks in advance for your time with these questions – but also with ICANN! Best Regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allemd http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe

1 0

Fast Track - debat
by jefsey June 18, 2008

June 18, 2008

http://wikidna.org/index.php?title=FAST_TRACK_PROCESS_FOR_THE_INTRODUCTION_… A votre convenance et pour débat france@large la position présentée par le Staff sur Fast Track a été mise en ligne. For you convenience and france@large debate the Staff position on Fast Track has been put on-line. jfc

1 0

france@large press release (in French)
by JFC Morfin June 17, 2008

June 17, 2008

It seems that this PR did not make it to the lists. I send it again. It clarifies the france@large/ALAC relations. jfc ---- Versailles, le 16 juin 2008. france@large est la plus ancienne organisation mondiale d'"Internet @larges" ou d'"internautes ad largum", c'est à dire libres de toute contrainte, de ce fait considérés dans leur diversité comme représentatifs des besoins de toute la communauté des internautes sans distinction d'origine ou d'orientation d'aucune sorte. Formée en association 1901 en 2000 par les candidats français au Conseil d'Administration de l'ICANN, elle se compose d'un secrétariat coopté supportant une libre de diffusion de membres, ses sites et outils communs, de multiples Centres d'eXpertise et leur coopération avec divers projets. http://franceatlarge.org. france@large diffuse le communiqué de presse suivant. En tant que gestionnaires et propriétaires de nos propres internets, et par là co-propriétaires de l'internet général, nous sommes soucieux d'un fonctionnement efficace et harmonieux des protocoles, de l'adressage, du nommage et des référentiels nécessaires à sa technologie numérique et à l'émergence des solutions et services de facilitation sémantiques, dans le cadre d'un support multilinguistique robuste. A ce titre nous sommes attentifs à l'interopérabilité de nos choix techniques avec ceux de la communauté ICANN/IETF. Nous avons donc fait beaucoup pour aider à un accueil convenable de l'ICANN à Paris et pour la coopération de nos projets. Dans le but de leur montrer qu'il n'y avait pas que les Etats-Unis dans l'Internet et que nous étions prêts à travailler ensemble, pour autant que l'on adopte, dans le respect de chacune des cultures et avec le souci de chacun des intérêts nationaux, des valeurs plus françaises et moins mercantiles. Nous avons donc proposé notre coopération à un effort d'interopérabilité avec l'Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) auprès du Groupe de Travail présidé par Vint Cerf sur le support linguistique dans le système des noms de domaine (DNS), et à l'effort d'intégration de l'ICANN auprès de nos collègues @large français, européens et mondiaux. Nous avons engagé l'initiative Multilinc à la frontière du DNS et du sémantique et trouvé un modus vivendi acceptable entre les projets IDNA de l'IETF et ML-DNS de france@large (qui visent à un support totalement indifférencié et égal des toutes les langues, écritures et cultures, ce à quoi la langue française et l'expérience de la francophonie nous prédisposent). Par contre, l'ICANN a dans un premier temps décliné notre coopération avant leur sommet européen de Paris où nous ne pourrons donc présenter nos positions, projets pour la communauté et accomplissements. france@large et l'assemblée de ses membres @large en prennent acte. Nous comprenons par là que l'ICANN poursuit des objectifs différents des nôtres et qu'elle veut nous amener à les adopter en préalable. Nos objectifs sont ceux des Déclarations unanimes du Sommet Mondial pour la Société de l'Information : l'engagement que notre société soit "people centric, à caractère humain, centrada en la persona". N'étant pas intéressée par un tel changement d'allégeance, france@large ne peut que suggérer aux @large français de participer à titre personnel à la Conférence de l'ICANN où ils peuvent nouer des liens avec des personnes soumises aux mêmes contraintes qu'eux et mieux comprendre leurs problèmes communs. france@large, ignorée par l'ICANN, entend n'avoir à cette conférence aucune présence officielle ou pro-active, et ignorer l'ICANN, évitant ainsi les risques de friction. Ce dont traite l'ICANN ne l'intéressant que par les contraintes qui en résultent pour la communauté Internet mondiale, elle reste toutefois ouverte à tout dialogue facilitant la transition du IANA vers une solution distribuée, dont certains de ses membres engagent l'expérimentation sur le terrain. Elle organise le 27 juin à 14 heures une réunion de débriefing de la venue de l'ICANN pour ceux qui le désirent, participe le 28 juin à l'InterCamp au Sommet de l'Arche de la Défense, et tient le 2 juillet une assemblée générale où ces Centres d'eXpertise discuteront d'un plan stratégique pour un Internet Sémantique et Multilingue, centré sur les personnes, dans le respect de leurs cultures et des nos valeurs. Elle reconstruit actuellement le dossier préparatoire à cette réunion. Elle organise ou participe à diverses autres réunions ou événements spécialisés tout au long de la Semaine de l'Internet Mondial de Paris qu'elle avait sucitée pour accompagner le travail engagé et accompli par Sébastien Bachollet et l'AGIFEM et où tous les Internet @larges présents à Paris sont très cordialement invités. Elle convie également le plus grand nombre des @larges français de participer à la manifestation EGENI, où nous escomptons tous fermement que M. Besson nous fera dire dans un contexte national interne les fondations de ce qu'il dira à l'ICANN dans un contexte international, et que nous verrons peut-être se dessiner avec les intervenants (Catherine Trautmann, Christopher Wilkinson, Bertrand de la Chapelle, etc.) les contours de l'Euro-FGI et des débats prioritaires au sein du FGI-FR (liste élargie et ouverte des Priorités Numériques). Toutes les informations sont sur le site de grance@large ou y seront dans les jours qui viennent au fur et à mesure de la reconstruction de l'agenda. http://egeni.org http://fr-fgi.fr http://assisesdunumerique.fr http://isoc.fr http://franceatlarge.org DIC 103 - Priorités Numériques http://wikifgi-fr.org/index.php?title=DIC_103_-_Priorit%C3%A9s_Num%C3%A9riq… _______________________________________________ diffusion mailing list diffusion(a)fgi-fr.org http://fgi-fr.org/mailman/listinfo/diffusion_fgi-fr.org

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris
by LB June 17, 2008

June 17, 2008

Dear friends, good morning. I would like to know how the system will work, which will broadcast on the Internet the proceedings of the ALAC and Euralo in Paris. Thank you! -- LB

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Improvement of the win-win relationship between the Staff and the At-Large Community
by Frederic Teboul June 11, 2008

June 11, 2008

Monsieur Morfin, Merci pour votre message et au plaisir de vous rencontrer la semaine prochaine. Frédéric Frédéric E. Teboul, Ph.D., MBA Manager for At-Large Regional Affairs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone Number: +33 6 3487 0575 (France) & +1 310 578 8642 (USA) Email: frederic.teboul(a)icann.org AIM/iSight: frederic.teboul(a)mac.com Jabber: frederic.teboul(a)jabber.icann.org Skype: frederic.teboul On 10/06/08 23:17, "JFC Morfin" <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> wrote: At 17:56 10/06/2008, At-Large Staff wrote: >For your convenience, below you will find a restated set of the same >questions. This answer is based upon the vision that ICANN is not necessary to the Internet on an Internet @large point of view, but necessary to some members of the Internet community. As such ICANN : 1) must undertake a transition towards a mission which is not yet well defined as enhanced cooperation has not been really discussed by the WSIS community. It is therefore likely that this mission will not be finalized before the end of JPA and IGF. 2) @large are probably probably going to be the toughest competition ICANN will meet in the coming years if it engages into a TLD marketing campaign, because the technical evolution is to a dillution of the DNS in terms of TLDs and semantic addressing. (This conforms to ICANN ICP-3 document ICANN should reread). > 1. What issues being debated in ICANN do you believe are the most >important to your RALO? - which services ICANN can bring to the @large community in terms of network operations (escrow is an idea). - Mostly ICANN can help RALO meetings, and RALOs progressive autonomy from ICANN in order to become credible ICANN interfaces (RALO must take over an interest in practical operations ISOC has never taken). Otherwise it will be a grassroots @large deployment. These kinds of move are slow and call for adequate/credible tools/applications. I think we see them coming (ex. unbound). >2. How can we help make the time you spend on ICANN issues as valuable and >efficient to you as possible? - In listening and reporting to the BoD. @large are no value to ICANN if they are not accepted as field experts. What is certainly difficult is to assess the exact field of expertise of each of them (usage, PRs, operations, DNS, legal, political, future, connections, etc.). This kind of work calls for a great expertise in the Internet field, just to be able to understand the implications of what is reported. Example: ICANN should work out an agreement with IETF on a IETF/ICANN WG-@large able to interface @larges. Not so much to answer @larges, but to get commented/translated field inputs from @larges as lead users. Probably the same with the GAC. >3. What challenges and opportunities do you see for your RALO and for >At-Large more generally (in the context of ICANN work)? Getting ICANN to properly define a strategic objective which fits whith what Internet users might be interested in. The real risk is an ICANN split due to a disagreement between what ICANN proposes and what users really wait for. >4. How interaction between and within RALOs be increased? f2f specialised meetings. Working/Reporting on a given topic. With external experts. >5. What are the top three things you would like your RALO to achieve? - participate in creating the Euro-IGF - document a position on ICANN future and specific services to Europe - accredit france@large :-) >6. What are the top three things you believe ICANN Staff could do to help >your RALO? - explain why they opposed france@large - work on support of the RALO through working tools. Mailing lists (ICANN Staff should be explained about) are not sufficient. This is a community wide need ICANN should be associated with - organising the funding of network oriented Open Source projects. GPL is not oriented towards networking solutions. (cf. RFC 3869) jfc _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Improvement of the win-win relationship between the Staff and the At-Large Community
by Kleinwächter, Wolfgang June 11, 2008

June 11, 2008

Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Medienstadt Leipzig e.V., EU-RALO: 1. What issues being debated in ICANN do you believe are the most important to your RALO? User and consumer rights, in patricular with regard to the so-called ICANN issues (including freedom of expression, date protection, privacy, prices, security, stability, diversity, multilingualism) 2. How can we help make the time you spend on ICANN issues as valuable and efficient to you as possible? a. To avoid long and time consuming buerocratical procedures and discussions b. to concentrate on substance and relevant issues c. to imrpove the interaction with other ICANN constituencies d. to work towards a more significant AL representation in the BoD (from Voice to Vote) 3. What challenges and opportunities do you see for your RALO and for At-Large more generally (in the context of ICANN work)? ALAC and the RALO mechanism have a great opportunity (and responsibility) to become the center of gravity for individual Internet users around the globe. For ICANN as a whole such an acceptance would produce a much higher level of legitimacy and would help ICANN to become - as stated in the Annex to the JPA - a model of a multistakeholder organisation. If ICANN can achieve this, it will be much safer against a new wave of efforts by various (governmental) groups to get a more direct governmental oversight over the management of critical Internet ressources. This is in particular important in the context of the IGF. 4. How interaction between and within RALOs be increased? Specialized F2F meetings, also on the local/rgional level are important. Workshops, Round Tables etc. with opportunities for remote participation are very helpful but have to be prepared carefully. There has to be substance für such events, not just "coming together and strengthening relationships". A workplan which would identify three to five main priority topics for individual Internet users for a period of three or five years would helpful. Based on working papers, such a process could produce a discussion around issues aimed at a final document which could lead to an "At Large Publication Series" where users get quick access to answers. 5. What are the top three things you would like your RALO to achieve? a. to stablize its still fragile institutional structure b. to do more outreach to get a sub-regional geographical balance (in case of EU-RALO this means CEEC, Russia but also Northern Europe (Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Greenland) c. to produce more substance / input d. to become a key player in the EURO-IGF 6. What are the top three things you believe ICANN Staff could do to help your RALO? a.reduce the burocratical barriers to get things done b.organize financial support for local and regional activities c. fight for ALAC interests and positions within the ICANN burocracy d. help to transform ALAC into an ALSO which would give the AL the same right as the three other SOs have, that is to send two voting directors to th Board.

3 2

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Improvement of the win-win relationship between the Staff and the At-Large Community
by Kleinwächter, Wolfgang June 11, 2008

June 11, 2008

Thanks JFC I do not know whether I am really ICANN centric. I am more Internet centric and if ICANN in the cneter of the Internet than I can accept this. It is not a secret that I am a long time critical supporter of ICANN. Regardless of all the failures and setbacks, I see ICANN as the best of all worst case scenarios we have so far for the future of Internet Governance. I also have the impression that ICANN has still a lot of potential, that it is still a laboratory and that ICANN 3.0 will look much better than the original version. It is up to the community to make ICANN better and better. Anyhow, below are some comments ot your comments wolfgang ________________________________ Von: euro-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von JFC Morfin Gesendet: Mi 11.06.2008 12:37 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Improvement of the win-win relationship between the Staff and the At-Large Community Dear Wolfgang, I suppose that these answers are also here to be discussed? Your points are well made. We obviously have a slightly different vision of the network.May I say that I feel you are more ICANN centric, ISO is user centric and WSIS and I are person centric (this in my mind is neither a critic, nor a something very differentiated, just a flavor - evolutions and transitions make the things fuzzy anyway). At 10:45 11/06/2008, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Medienstadt Leipzig e.V., EU-RALO: > >1. What issues being debated in ICANN do you believe are the most >important to your RALO? >User and consumer rights, in patricular with regard to the so-called >ICANN issues (including freedom of expression, date protection, >privacy, prices, security, stability, diversity, multilingualism) JFC: I fear there is a mission creep when you speak of freedom of expression? IMHO, ICANN claims two products: - IANA operations - NTIA root g/sTLD coordination Wolfgang: No it is not FOE or so as such, it is the FOE dimension of the management of critical resources (FOE & new gTLD is just one exmaple) >2. How can we help make the time you spend on ICANN issues as >valuable and efficient to you as possible? >a. To avoid long and time consuming buerocratical procedures and discussions >b. to concentrate on substance and relevant issues >c. to imrpove the interaction with other ICANN constituencies >d. to work towards a more significant AL representation in the BoD >(from Voice to Vote) JFC: Amen. Except that Staff cannot work against corporate policy rules and by-laws without a BoD reformation mandate. My feeling is that it is up to us to obtain that mandate. Since we only have Voice and no Vote, we can only use external pressure until ICANN respects its Charter again. Wolfgang: External pressure is always good but you should not say good bye before you havestarted to try to do something. >3. What challenges and opportunities do you see for your RALO and >for At-Large more generally (in the context of ICANN work)? > >ALAC and the RALO mechanism have a great opportunity (and >responsibility) to become the center of gravity for individual >Internet users around the globe. JFC: I disagree it would be an opportunity for the Internet community (please remember that a global system is a closed system and there are only win/win or lose/lose situation). In a distributed system a center of gravity is bring the system back to decentralization. This would introduce/maintain a rigidity which would split the network. Wolfgang: Yes and know My wording is obviously misleading. The way you put it you are right. My point is that ALAC/RALO should become a recognozed and well accepted key player ina decentraliced system. >If ICANN can achieve this, it will be much safer against a new wave >of efforts by various (governmental) groups to get a more direct >governmental oversight over the management of critical Internet >ressources. This is in particular important in the context of the IGF. JFC: If Governments were a danger through the IGF it would mean that @larges have poorly participated to the IGF they obtained. @larges' legitimacy as the IGF leaders (as being in each of the poles of governance as we made them defined and documented) is THE @large dramatic success at the WSIS. The IGF is "us", the ALAC may be "you" when ICANN is "they". This is were we have two different point of view: for you @larges should help ICANN to control the Internet, for me @larges should help ICANN to become the best possible example of support of the @large control on their own Internets throughout the common Internet. Wolfgang: I do not see the contradiction. ICANN will never control the Internet. Nobody cn control the Internet. ICANN coordinates some critical components. And users shuold have a say in how this is planned and executed. A strong ICANN is not bad but ICANN will get strong only with a strong at large. > 4. How interaction between and within RALOs be increased? > >Specialized F2F meetings, also on the local/rgional level are important. Yes. > Workshops, Round Tables etc. with opportunities for remote > participation are very helpful but have to be prepared carefully. > There has to be substance für such events, not just "coming > together and strengthening relationships". A workplan which would > identify three to five main priority topics for individual Internet > users for a period of three or five years would helpful. Based on > working papers, such a process could produce a discussion around > issues aimed at a final document which could lead to an "At Large > Publication Series" where users get quick access to answers. JFC: I am somewhat less practically optimistic than you. There is a growing france@large/FGI-FR consensus that we need a new comprehensive set of tools, based upon the state of the art (webDAV, RSS, ATOM, Wiki, Semantic Wiki, Mioga2, and more to come) to build an on-line maieutics oriented towards a new ad-hoc understanding of documents and document presentation to support multiconsensus (to possibly present in the same document opposing local consensus and their interoperations possibilities). Wolfgang: Agreed, more toosl Internet based no "classical academic staff" are need. You are right. >5. What are the top three things you would like your RALO to achieve? >a. to stablize its still fragile institutional structure >b. to do more outreach to get a sub-regional geographical balance >(in case of EU-RALO this means CEEC, Russia but also Northern Europe >(Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Greenland) .... and france@large :-) >c. to produce more substance / input Yes. But I am afraid there is a big split between the world as ICANN wants us to evangelize it and the world as we observe and make it. To realise that, I suggest you access our flow-chart: http://franceatlarge.org/org.htm. We have not understood the second reason why Staff opposed france@large, but we feel it is because a part from not existing, we are existing too much. This, certainly is a problem. What an ALS is permitted to do. There is a confusion to clarify in Paris : @larges are Internet @larges, not only ICANN @larges (at least in our opinion). This is why we consider much substance, including but not dedicated substance about/for ICANN. Wolfgang I did not really undertand the disucsison on france@large. You will help me to understand it better in Paris. >d. to become a key player in the EURO-IGF you are more than welcome - both to http://euro-igf.eu <http://euro-igf.eu/> and http://euro-igf.org <http://euro-igf.org/> . >6. What are the top three things you believe ICANN Staff could do >to help your RALO? >a.reduce the burocratical barriers to get things done >b.organize financial support for local and regional activities >c. fight for ALAC interests and positions within the ICANN burocracy >d. help to transform ALAC into an ALSO which would give the AL the >same right as the three other SOs have, that is to send two voting >directors to th Board. As I indicated, c and d are things Staff cannot loyally do unless for example we obtain a joint review committee to be convened by the BoD. These are things ALAC should certainly do. I will give you an example of key mission for an ALSO. ICANN is in charge (MoU with IETF) of the IANA operations and of what is related to Names and Numbers, IETF retaining control on Parameters (even if ICANN tend to pretend it is in charge of Parameters too). Now there is another important IANA area which is not allocated which is the description of the inter-users direct exchange protocols. This means all what users need to communicate in addition to addresses, domain names and protocol parameters. This includes for example : language documentation (IANA ccTLD Tables and Language Sub-Tag Registry), new product specifications (ALSO should review all the IETF/WG-Charters as IAB does. IAB is for architectural consistency, ALSO should be for usage convenience and interoperability with non-Internet solution of the digital convergence. Netiquette should also be documented, there. Terminology too. Etc... Wolfgang: Agreed, but even if in your opinion ALAC staff would become illoyal if they do c&d we should ask for doing this. The staff is not an instrument to control the consituencies, the staff is a service provider for the consituencies. This is my reading from the ICANN bylaws. And this is part of a bigger story if it comes to the relaitonshipo between the Board and the ICANN staff _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>

2 1

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Improvement of the win-win relationship between the Staff and the At-Large Community
by JFC Morfin June 11, 2008

June 11, 2008

At 13:24 11/06/2008, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Wolfgang: >External pressure is always good but you should not say good bye >before you havestarted to try to do something. hmm... I do things for 9 years :-) I am not kissing good-bye. They just do not want us in :-) Because they know that external pressure is more efficiently managed when you are in? >I disagree it would be an opportunity for the Internet community >(please remember that a global system is a closed system and there >are only win/win or lose/lose situation). In a distributed system a >center of gravity brings the system back to decentralization. This >would introduce/maintain a rigidity which would split the network. > >Wolfgang: > >Yes and know My wording is obviously misleading. The way you put it >you are right. My point is that ALAC/RALO should become a recognized >and well accepted key player in a decentralized system. ICANN and IETF want the internet to be decentralised under them. Real life world is distributed. The "conflict" with @larges is that the digital ecosystem is therefore distributed under @larges (WSIS's Society of Information as people centric). This is what the initial by-laws accepted in giving 50% to the Future (@large) and 50% to the Legacy. But the Legacy won at ICANN, and UK representing Europe in Tunis also agreed in giving the Legacy control to the USA (and emergent issues to the IGF). This is why ICANN must support status quo and contain @larges, as long as they do not have a clear understanding of their future mission. ICANN is quite consistent with itself. Our role is to help/force it to stay consistent with reality. For 9 years my ICANN motto is "get real". >Wolfgang >I did not really undertand the disucsison on france@large. You will >help me to understand it better in Paris. We did not either. And we still do not even understand the answer we received in English. (We do not expect French to be clearer, but the text to have been reworded. This is probably why translations will take months). >Wolfgang: >Agreed, but even if in your opinion ALAC staff would become illoyal >if they do c&d we should ask for doing this. The staff is not an >instrument to control the consituencies, the staff is a service >provider for the consituencies. This is my reading from the ICANN >bylaws. And this is part of a bigger story if it comes to the >relaitonshipo between the Board and the ICANN staff I said BoD in thinking to the one who is in control :-) (he actually is the one who signs the Staff's pay checks !) He has an architectural policy, as Google has another one. I have a third one. This boils down to where the IANA is. At ICANN, at Google or at each @large. Which one is the most stable, secure, resillient, innovative and credible: none scores 5/5 today due to the credibility factor computed from what people think, not from what things are. I do not oppose this: this is an Internet traditional way to filter our crazy ideas: "running code". "Test it !" We could have done it together (this is what ICANN proposed in 2001 [ICP-3]). france@large did it on a large scale enough, and as per ICANN requirements. We know we are wasting time now. We also know it is a startegy against us :-) jfc

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] TR : Improvement of the win-win relationship between theStaffand the At-Large Community
by Tommi Karttaavi June 11, 2008

June 11, 2008

Frederic, all, Below, please find the answers of ISOC Finland to the questions 1 through 5. We didn't manage to come up with anything to the last two. Best regards, Tommi ------------------------------------- 1. What issues are most important to your RALO and your region? Reliability of the current DNS service, both technically and as a service independent of politics. Maintaining the current independence of ICANN is very important. 2. How can we help make your time efficient? Some kind of document that outlines all the documents, tools, websites, guidelines etc. that are available for At-Large Structure organisations would be helpful. If such a document/web page exists, a pointer to it would be nice. In general, we would like to know better what is going on. The web sites Pertaining to At-Large should be better organised and structured and give more information. Having to go through hundreds of received emails is not a very efficient way of finding information when you need it. A mailing list for Finnish people who are interested in ICANN would be a big help. Can ICANN provide that? 3. What challenges and opportunities do you see for your region? It is difficult to find people who are interested or even aware that ICANN exists. 4. How could we increase interaction between communities? That's a tough one. Everybody has a zillion other fora besides this they are supposed to follow. So community website is not the answer, if it is "just another wiki I have lost the password to". Mailing lists are a good but very limited tool. Building real interaction is a difficult task. 5. What are the top three priorities you would list for your regions? - keeping ICANN independent - having a working DNS - implementing IPv6 6. What are the top three objectives you would like to see achieved for your regions? 7. What are the top three activities you would like to see implemented and practiced in your region?

1 0