At 10:12 30/04/2008, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

JFC, Please find below the questions asked by Wolf in plain text. I hope it helps. Cheers, Roberto

Thank you, Roberto. NB. france@large members are copied separately since the france@large working language is French, some French summaries are added. Dear Wolf, Let me first clear up something, I can fully understand as to why one cannot understand something. However, I do not think it to be reasonable to start a conflict in inventing and broadly publishing answers instead of asking questions. This has created some unrest among france@large for no reason at all. I am working on a document relating france@large's history and positions for our press folder. It will be translated in English. Therefore, I will only explain what is necessary for you to fully understand what you ask for. I will try to give all the detail you need. Do not hesitate to ask for more. The france@large structure is "innovative". But it is also 30 years proven through a score of other projects and 7.5 years old, performant and stable, and very commonly copied in the Internet governance. A. Some preliminary We have already met this same attitude several times at ICANN and IETF. The last time was when the Intlnet organization (see below) was denied to join its proper NCUC constituency. Opposition was lead by Danny Younger with the same absurdities. I was very gentle with them and provided without result a great many explanations. We made it clear that we wanted also to participate in the WG-IDN. This was opposed by some for strategic reasons and interests. We called upon Franck Fowlie, but eventually dropped the issue when we won in ISO against their wish to "internationalize" ISO 3166 to control the IDNccTLDs and IANA. This is why we sent the france@large application during an ICANN meeting, while informing my opponents. There is no interest in sneaking in if we really want to work together. It has not been difficult to learn from him that the Staff is under pressure on this file. Nick said he spent 10 times more time on it than usual, but did not explain why. Nor said I was wrong. B. In this post I wear two caps (1) general secretary of the france@large association. As such my role is purely administrative and neutral. (2) Interim Chair of the france@large @large General Assembly which is to france@large what the GNSO/GA is to ICANN, except that france@large's purpose in life is to support the GA (like ISOC is to the IETF). In such capacity my role is to express the rough or multi-consual positions of the GA Members as they result from more than seven years of debates, considerations of the positions and researches of our centers of expertise, and common actions. C. Intlnet I created Intlnet (as the SIAT [Secrétariat International pour les Applications de la Télématique]) in August 1978. The mission was to serve as the secretary of the international network operators (monopolies, ISPs, and private nets) consensus in the best interest of the people's relational spaces. The job was the same as the GNSO, a fully open ccNSO and the ASO. It permited me (as Tymnet International services manager) to get them into the same room (ISIS Club, twice a year) to discuss the International digital network while some where in legal or commercial competition. The administrative formula I used was based upon my experience of the French Navy distributed and mobile international network , voluntary flexiblity of the French non-profit association law, and my small business international development independent consultancy. It legally coupled - on one side a formal light secretariat [a few hours a month, outside of meetings], acting as a common information center and a foreign expertise repository, with no budget and assuming ancillary tasks, legal responsibilities, information management, coordination etc. - on the other side an unformal assembly of monopoly, public operator, private nets, private entrepreneurs and individual informed users and of their commonly catalyzed and assisted projects. It worked well for years, proved to be extremely effective, legaly robust, at low cost. It dramatically helped the emergence of the international network (http://intlnet.org/intlhist.htm - the world network the day the Internet was born). Staying equally adequate, this administrative formula survived the various changes in the Intlnet further points of influence, priorities, tactics and Membership. It is the kind of structure adopted by the UN, ISO, IETF, ISOC, ICANN, WSIS, IGF, civil society, etc. with the today increasingly accepted rule that, in the end, what counts are the ideas, pertinence, practical tests and consensus, and not the number, powers, vaporware texts and votes. IETF is pretty strict on this. D. france@large As we did many times in many areas of the world digital ecosystem (and keep doing it), we applied in 2000 this formula to the specific support of the French @large community, together with most of the French @large candidates for the ICANN BoD election. For one year, we were quite visible, contributing and accepted; but we observed that ICANN did not want to play the things along the international diversified network ecology and its initial commitments. It wanted to play them, along the US interests and culture, moreover after 9/11, and along <http://whitehouse.gov/pcipb>http://whitehouse.gov/pcipb. We expected and welcomed it because this was logic and necessary for the network stability. This is because it was more credible a scenario than the USA giving away the Internet. We adapted. Intlnet kept supporting societal and technical projects and issues, concerns and actions engaged by "Internet co-owners" (as we translate "@large") with a global vision in mind. france@large did the same for its France oriented constituents. E. ICANN dropped interest in @large We progressively dropped our direct interest in ICANN's bureaucracy while they dropped their interest in @large, blocked Esther Dyson and Pindar Wong, maintained the "BoD squatters" in place, dropped interest in Joop Teemstra's IDNO, etc. We also chose to drop visibility not to confuse the projects we helped to engage in many areas, such as: - the French side of the Intlnet "dot-root" community test-bed (as per ICANN ICP-3) on the DNS evolution (http://dot-root.com). - AFRAC, to work on a France's digital protection experimentation and the building of a French referential system as a national level MDRS (Multilingual Distributed Referential System), a distributed enhanced IANA for the Multilingual Semantic Internet (http://afrac.org). - icannatlarge.org that Vittorio knows rather well. We eventually registered in France the ATLARGE non-profit organization (after so many years of debates) ... and it failed. - cooperation with the MINC (Multilingual Internet Names Consortium) led us to create Eurolinc, for France and Europe. It turned being too "French Government first" to our liking. It was quite influent at the WSIS. (http://eurolinc.org, now http://eurolinc.eu) - @large oriented watch and project (PERFIDES) considerations in RFIDs and nanoization fields (http://perfida.org). They are a part of the future france@large flag project known as the "fridge screen" for the housewife and family global e-control. - support of the French language requirements in the Internet technology. This lead to an heavy load mail-combat at the IETF (RFC 4646) to defend languages and cultures, interests of non-anglo-saxon publishing industries, and IANA independence against the Unicode/Google lobby, and the creation of the MLTF (http://mltf.org) as one of its centers of expertise. - etc. This drained most of our remaining initial members and called on high level experts through AFRAC and the through the creation of MLTF. Each time you have to engage in a new fight you shift the focus, quickly "losing" the interest of some of your Members; but only slowly "gaining" new interests. F. Some of the engaged actions and meetings ahead When Sebastien Bachollet suceeded in getting ICANN to Paris, we decided it was a good opportunity to bring some of our experience to ICANN in an appropriate manner, in order to help its best transition. We, therefore, revived the external shell of france@large [i.e. publishing its GA list] and still are in this process. 1) we initiated the World Internet Week de Paris concept, gathering other events in the same week, applied as an ALS. (http://wiw.de-paris.info). 2) In order to help we had protected several domain names and made the future IGF-FR site available to the French Internet Community. Due to the lack of reaction of ISOC France (currently submitted to a "Denial of Thinking" by some activists), we engaged a roadmap to create an independent structure (AFGI - you can see a flow chart of AFGI at http://fr-fgi.fr/status.htp) copied on ours. We will probably continue for a few weeks to foster that way the emergent French Internet Governance Forum. As a result, we established a growing IGF-FR 700 people distribution list. We hope the AFGI will be fully transferred by the end of June.. We consider a comparable move for the http://euro-IGF.eu project, but I think we should discuss it first. 3) We plan two expert meetings on multilinguistics (Multilinguistica 2008) and ethitechics (Ethitechnica 2008) in June. 4) we cooperate to the Multilinc project (http://multilinc.org) where we serve as a mailing list for the emergence of French CULTLD (Cultural, Lingustic and/or Regional TLDs) projects. 5) the same we co-sponsor the Intertest (http://intertest.org) project and contribute to its French/Ebglish parallel writting of its IETF Draft. 6) we pushed our members and ISOC France members to join the IETF WG:IDNABIS to be able to help them as far as French language related issues are concerned. We understand that others linguistic community plan to copy us.

...

Let me try it again:

This is the first time I am asked something clear!.

...

We do not really understand the type, character and functioning of your organisation France@Large.

france@large is exactly as it is defined by its "statuts" Legally it is a neutral, independent, non-profit organization with a maximum 11 coopted voluteers as Secretary Members. It includes a Treasurer, but at this stage it has no bank account. This NGO fully abides by the French laws on non-profit organizations, which are probably the most thoroughly worked out in the world. They in turn permit a great deal of innovative flexibility in the "statuts" (acts of incorporation and by-laws) to adapt to new situations. These 11 individual Secretary Members make the secretariat membership, nomination committee, general assembly, and Board. under the name of "Secretariat". The functioning is democratic. Until there are 7 members, the Chair has more autonomy on a daily basis. There is no limit concerning the @large Members who form the General Assembly the job of which is to debate and concert. Not to decide, but to help each Member to decide for his own system. This is what IGF understood a distributed society need (we call it polycracy). This separates the legal responsibility, financial mantters, operational management from the political aspects that belong to the General Assembly. It helps the sponsoring, catalyzing, and coordination of R&D and of projects because @large members bear no legal, financial, poltical, and responsibility. Only ethical obligations to the @large community and to the public. The association does not maintain mailing list archives for legal responsibility protection (third party archives have been registered by Members. This is equivalent to Joe Sims' no-member/non-profit ICANN construction in a French legal context where the ICANN solution is banned as undemocratic (historic declaration as of August 4, 1789 which began the French Revolution).

...

Is it a member organisation of/for individuals interested in the cause or Internet users?

It is a three layer member organisation that is interested in the cause of the Internet co-owners through the provision of an operational and neutral professional support structure: - first layer organizes and supports an open @large "general assembly" mailing list - second layer is an independent well supported mailing list where everyone should (but not obligatorily) be French or a Resident [in order to be able to possibly gain public sponsoring]. The list is not subject to ID verification. - third layer : is an interaction with the non-registered @large and general public in : - calling on external expertise as an editor or a catalyst to comply with the motions of the General Assembly. - providing information and ancillary services to the "General Assembly" mailing list. - providing information and ongoing representation to the general public on behalf of the general assembly.

How can individuals participate in France@Large?

@large individuals can: (1) be coopted as one of the 11 voluntary members. This is usually performed through an "engagement period". The law allows NGOs to remain incorporated with two Members. We currently have 3 members, and 2 "fiancés", some for a long period of time. This is really just a matter of paperwork and personal practicalities. 11 is for manageable stability and help people understand that action is with the GA not with the secretariat. There are not many voluntaries. Should there be more, we have the authority to adapt in minutes (one e-mail vote and a letter to the Prefecture Associations Bureau). (2) freely join our mailing list as "@large" Members. We currently have 24 of them because we want to firstly understand how we stand with ICANN and IETF. We also want to build on the <http://wiw.de-paris.info/>http://wiw.de-paris.info and the French IGF publicity. We engaged in them for that purpose. (3) freely join our centers of expertise and work on analysis, studies, documents. (4) share in organising projects or events with the support of Secretariat. NB. in French law, organisations are named "personne légales" and must be documented as such. Not mentionning them means that only individual ("Personnes physiques") are considered. There is no sub-representation right being documented (this right would permit an organisation to be represented by different persons).

...

Besides your mailing list, are there other possibilities for participation, such as meetings, General Assemblies?

The mailing list is our permanent general assembly online. This is not an administrative body of france@large as clearly indicated in "Statuts", but as General Assembly activity as in GNSO/GA. We developed the French Internet Governance Forum in order to enlarge its possible audience to the whole of the French information society. In this we closely cooperate with the French ISOC Chapter. We are careful at helping them to make a difference between a French rooted project such as ours and the other existing, or proposed, ones, and the Network (US) rooted ISOC. There is complementarity and no over-lap.

Do individual members have voting rights at the GA?

Everyone is an individual member. In the france@large structure the legal general assembly is named the "secretariat" to avoid confusion with its "deliverable" which is a supported open mailing list, wearing the name of "General Assembly" for the "@large" Members.of this "GA".To properly understand what <mailto:france@large>france@large is, you just have to understand that its "GA" is of the same nature as the GNSO/GA.

...

Can they be elected to the Board or other constituencies of France@Large?

The "Secretary Members" of france@large are the Membersip, the Nominating Committee, the Board and the "Secretariat" (i.e. the ordinary/extraordinary assembly). Please refer to the "Statuts". The "@large Members" form the "@large General Assembly".

...

Who decides in France@Large -- the General Assembly, the Board or the Secretariat - or what is the "legislative" and what the "executive" part?

You do not use the "Status" wording. - the General Secretary, the Editor and the Treasurer are the Bureau and the executive. - the "secretariat" is the Secretaries Membership, the Board and the general ordinary/extraordinary assembly. It is the legislative. - the General Assembly of @large Members is neither "executive" nor "legislative", it is "concertative" and supported (like ISOC supports the IETF). Up to now the GA is rough/multi-consensual. This means that the decisions concerning the functionning of the GA is managed as is the IETF. The positions are multiconsensually documented, this means that if there is not a unique consensus, the different positions are documented in parallel by consensus of their supporters and interoperability is discussed and reported. Up to now the small size of the GA made it uncessary to go any further than to go by a netiquette copied from IETF, former IDNO and common sense netiquette. As explained we plan to detail things more (probably based upon the analysis carried at the DNSO/WG-Review and for IDNO by-laws) once we have a new Chair and advanced on the SAIG working tool.

What is the proportion between members and secretariat?

Everyone is member. There are four colleges of Members (cf. "Statuts"). - the Secretary Members. There are three of them plus 2 joining and we are looking for one or two to manage our site and wiki. - the @large Members. They are the people subscribed to the "GA's Listegenerale". There are 23 of them. - the Expert Members, they are members of center of expertise, people cooperating to project or event organisation. There are around 20 of them.

Does secretariat mean employed staff?

Secretariat means the Secretary Members college forming the legislative of the association. france@large's job in life is to legally, adminstrativelly, and technogically support an open informal GA, so that this GA is free to debate, motion, organize, etc. and ask france@large to support what they need, incuding to ordinarily represent them with press and other entities. The GA is the brain, and france@large is the body. Both layers are total liberty to legally update their bylaws in a few days to adapt to new situations. The way that the GA organizes itself is its own business and to be documented in the france@large Reglement Interieur (by-laws). The GA, which I temporarily chair for practical reasons, has not expressed such a need as of yet. We will work on that as soonas the ALAC affiliation is completed weI suspected the ICANN attitude and did not want to run into the risk of an anti-ALAC lobby). Also, we agree, from the experience acquired throughout the Internet Community (IDNO, icannatlarge.org, GNSO WG-Review, and sublists, etc.) that the moderation and chairmanship of a mailing list should be facilitated by an ad-hoc software system, which is equal and neutral to everyone. We jointly work with people from different NGOs on the specifications of such a system (SAIG). This should result in a DIC (Document d'Internet Commun) before year's end. Its basic architecture was documented last year in an ISOC project (to obtain an impartial competent review) that was technically approved. The 'secretariat' means voluntary staff. The "business work" is delegated to specialized organizations related to Intlnet or not. For example, world@wide is a tiny five year old Intlnet foundation specializing in Internet Governance support and protection through hosting and domain name investment : they provide the domain names and the hosting we use. The publishing will be carried out by a new non-profit that can use and pay students, named Epistole. Everyone has their own job.

...

Another "real" question is financing and funding of France@Large: Are you funded by membership fees only?

We are organised to have no expenses and no funding. Experience shows that looking for and attending to money costs more than the resulting return. We go by the practical rule that non-profit associations should never do anything the Chairs will not be able to pay from their own pocket. This has some limitations, but no money related obligations.

...

Do you have other sources of income such as donations, sponsors etc.?

This is certainly permitted. Please cf. the "Statuts". The reason why we need at least three persons is that the Treasurer and Chair must legally be a different person to obtain public subsidies. However, we prefer to gain practical support (free meeting room, hosting, etc.) to remain independent. We consider ourselves a public service.

As far as I understood, you have several secretariat

...

members - are they volunteers or employed by France@Large?

There is no money, no employees, and a maximum of 11 volunteers to support a limitless, fully open, etc. mailing list as a non-legally responsible "GA" wherein no one has to produce anything other than ideas (no ID required) - voting authentication will be treated in a different way though the SAIG (on a contribution basis - we do not look for king, president and votes, we look for multiconsesus). Every knowledgeable and motivated individual can join or create one of our CX (Center of Expertise).

...

(Compared with other ALSes, a professional secretariat needs considerable income what can hardly be covered by membership fees only).

Professional only means manned by professionnals, and not by paid amateurs.

...

This are the questions I noted when I read your application and the Due Diligence form. And, as I said, I couldn't understand the type, character and functioning of your organisation - and would be pleased to learn more about it!

As a general comment, our efficacity rules go by the Gospel: - Mark 2, 18-22 - we deal with new things where the mistake is to address them with old ideas and structures. - Matthew 10, 9 - we need no money, etc. - Mark 9,30-37 - we want to be the leader. This system works and survives rather well.

...

For the rest of your interesting remarks regarding ICANN, Internet business and governance, standardisation, diversity, multi-linguism, WSIS/SMSI etc. I am looking forward to a discussion with you, Jefrey, hopefully at the next opportunity in Paris.

I still hope that we can find a solution together, without too much noise and confrontation - but for our common cause: the interest of the Internet users.

Certainly. However, you have to understand how hurting this fud/fuss was perceived. Moreover, it was all done in public. I, therefore, had to calm things here, and to bark a little bit to ensure that some people do not bite back. All of this is a good example to help Roberto understand why f2f meetings are of great importance. Where are you located? Any chance for you to come to Geneva on May 13? I do not know yet whether I will go there myself; as all of this, of course, costs a lot (please remember that we have no budget :-). All the best. jfc