<html>
Dear Barbara,<br>
why not just to say what all of us known all the way long and that Joe
Sims spent his time telling us and that GAC Members explained to us from
the very beginning and that we partly failed at correcting using the
"democratic tool"? <br><br>
The "A" in ICANN really stands for "Agency", what a
GAC Member described as the well-known "AmerICANN". This Agency
as any other Gov Agency in the world is here to enforce the law to the
benefit of its country and of its citizens. In this case (47 USC 230
(f)(1)) the control by the USG, under the jurisdiction of the Congress,
of every computer in the world plugged into a packet switch network
interoperable with US resources. The flaw comes from the US constant data
networking doctrine (and Arpanet architecture): the datanetwork is an
access to a computer club, priority now to the US critical infrastructure
club. Such a network has no/few specific reality by itself and offers no
internal services to the users. Services are on the edges (what one might
name 1D network vertical architecture, by opposition to 2D horizontal
architecture including ancillary and added services and to 3D
architecture extending to the global relational usage). Such a vision
does not technically care about users. Only "3D" does, hence
the imbalance between their offer and our expectations.<br><br>
What was a fair commercial and political attempt to control the world
through a cross contract policy too complex to unknot, has become since
Sept/11 a US national security issue. Stuart Lynn never called on the
Govs for money, but to determine who was supporting the US security
policy and who was interested in being protected by the US e-umbrella.
The @large smokescreen maintained by Mike Roberts, just in case, was
initially evaluated as a source of risks and then kept at as a low cost
and still possibly useful diversion. The ERC is just adapting the ICANN
structure to a standard Agency structure. GAC and ITU are the ways to
handle the Govs. ccTLDs as such are not of any real interest; they were
ways to relate with their Govs.<br><br>
The same as Shanghai Beijing oriented, I read Amsterdam as the nearest
place from Brussels ICANN could chose to try a last attempt to enroll
Europe, trying to use the still different internal European attitudes,
knowing that within a few months the European position will be quite
united. I suppose that by Dec 15th the US global position will have been
settled among Gov and Industry stakeholders.<br><br>
In this the @large and Civil society members are just talking, while
politics are getting together towards positions and industry and some
Govs are acting. Guess who will win?<br><br>
I think that we are a single network and that therefore nobody should
win: we should adapt to each other's and ally. I am afraid the momentum
by White House/ICANN is such that we cannot do anything now, unless we
put our efforts together and come up with realistic propositions (like
http://dot-root.com ) and/or very convincing arguments, like Todds ones,
helping them understand where their strategy is partly wrong.<br><br>
1. TCP/IP is the problem. Todd we agree. But I do not think that this has
been overlooked. I would be very interested in the working viable
alternatives that some may start experimenting now. 2005 Internet maybe
rather different from the 2002 one.<br><br>
2. US Cyberspace security propositions claim to be local, regional and
national to address a threat which is correctly assessed as global.
<br>
- one must accept that the response to a global threat is a global
protection<br>
- one must accept that there is a problem in the "global"
understanding. "global" does not means "universal",
the entire world with the USA as a central stronghold, but means that
every nation must be considered as a place to protect and that true
security will not come from a centrally protected USA e-colonizing the
world with its security logic, but from mutually resilient interconnected
and locally adapted security policies.<br><br>
This means for example that we must build a coherent, equal and stable
numbering system where every country should receive a national IPv6 block
and accept to dedicate the same secondary block numbers to critical
systems in case of emergency situations. For justice and security. So the
US, the French or the Iraqi laws may decide to filter-out the traffic
from another country or to maintain calls from critical systems only
depending on situation, like in telephone.<br><br>
As long as we leave the Internet to a few private interests, commercial
greed and changing civil servants we will lack the policy stability and
innovative spirit we need.<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
At 19:55 27/10/02, Barbara Simons wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>What does it mean for users'
collective voice to persist? It certainly<br>
doesn't mean that users have any meaningful input into policy making,
let<br>
alone meaningful power. To even suggest otherwise is to play into
the hands<br>
of those who claim that ICANN is representing everyone.<br><br>
Why not come out and say that the so-called ICANN reform was a palace
coup<br>
that disenfranchised the user community and eliminated any
remaining<br>
vestiges of democracy within ICANN? Why pretend
otherwise?<br><br>
I would have no problem with the elimination of user input if ICANN
would<br>
restrict itself to technical issues and not get involved with
policy. But<br>
so long as ICANN also makes policy decisions, the lack of user input
means<br>
that only the voices of powerful special interests are heard.<br><br>
Barbara<br><br>
On 10/26/02 1:31 PM, "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
wrote:<br><br>
> ANother view is that icannatlarge.org is completely screwed up right
now,<br>
> largely because Hans as acting chair just eliminated any structure
to<br>
> decision making and just started announcing all sorts of policies on
his<br>
> own, without panel approval, and there does not exist anything
remotely<br>
> close to best or even ok practices in terms of how the group
makes<br>
> decisions, and this has lead quickly to several panel members
just<br>
> announcing their own policies and decision making processes, none of
which<br>
> are approved by the group in any formal way. All of this
could be fixed, I<br>
> guess, if one wanted to. But right now it is a mystery how
decisions are<br>
> made in the group.<br>
> <br>
> jamie<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Hans Klein wrote:<br>
>>
Please forward<br>
>> <br>
>>
******************************************************************<br>
>> Cyber-Federalist No.
15 25 October 2002<br>
[snip]<br>
>> <br>
>> ICANN has been a bold experiment in many areas, not least of
which is<br>
>> giving users a role in Internet policy-making. However,
user<br>
>> representation on ICANN's board has been vigorously contested,
and<br>
>> ICANN's current board seems likely to eliminate it.
Nonetheless, even<br>
>> if users are excluded from ICANN, their collective voice will
persist.<br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
Discuss@icann-ncc.org<br>
<a href="http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" eudora="autourl">http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br><br>
<br><br>
---<br>
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<br>
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(<a href="http://www.grisoft.com/" eudora="autourl">http://www.grisoft.com</a>).<br>
Version: 6.0.404 / Virus Database: 228 - Release Date:
15/10/02</blockquote></html>