[ncdnhc-discuss] Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform SeeksPublicSubmissions

[Jefsey Morfin]

Dear Alejandro and Danny,
I have real concerns with the implications on the global outcome of what 
Alejandro said.

At 09:49 01/04/02, Dany Vandromme wrote:
>"Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM" wrote:
> > 1. the committee on evolution and reform is a committee formed by the
> > Board to prepare input for the reform process, with as much and as good
> > input as possible from the community. It is no more "Alejandro's
> > committee" than the NCDNHC is "Milton's constituency".
>-
>I support Alejandro's remark

This Committee is quite a problem by itself. The decision is to be by the 
Board. Having a BoD active proposition committee means that the BoD will 
only propose and that the "decision" by the Board will only be a 
proposition escalated to the true decision level. Since - at this stage - 
such a decision level can only be the DoC or the USG, this to enforce that 
commitee is to kill the ICANN.

The only way to retain a possiblity for the ICANN to survive is to make 
sure that the Alejandro's committee is and stay an unformal way 
(complementary to Lynn's proposition) for the BoD to keep an eye on the 
propositions of Reform. Documenting its Members so they may better decide.

> > 2. the ways to put "political pressure from the outside" on ICANN all seem
> > to involve the executive or the legislative (now also the judiciary)
> > powers of the government of a single country. I detect a contradiction
> > with the principle of internationalization, and with the supposed aversion
> > to the intervention of governments, to which many have reacted after
> > reading Prof. Lynn's proposal.
>-
>Just as a partial remark, the intervention of governements will at least
>have the benefit to balance the US-Centric approach of most of the
>loudly-voiced stakeholders, independently of their commercial or
>non-commercial sensitivity. It doesn't mean that government is the right
>track, but is certainly an efficient way to increase the international 
>concerns.

Everyone knows about what the call to Govs means: a call to one Gov and 
therefore the objection of some or many others. The way to call on all the 
Govs is to call on the Local Internet Communities of which the local Govs 
are Memebrs with their NIC, local @large, national consumer organization, 
industry, ISPs, etc... But it will mean that the ICANN will be the 
contractor of the global community uniting all the local communities. That 
the ICANN will only operate what they may agree in common: the IANA 
functions in a very open minded way. That the ICANN will nver sign its 
ccTLDs contracts. That JDRP will lose its client.

Now who are the DoC and the USG going to support: Joe Sims or the common 
sense? Alejandro's  "me too" only puts the BoD out of the picture.

> > 3. so I would repeat a call to work for a reform that shapes ICANN in such
> > a way that it can really aspire to obtain control of the root, before the
> > governments really take the matter in their hands, and before the reform
> > becomes an all-business proposition (many of you have already seen the
> > proposal for a trade-association-only).

This is a partesan approach. It qualifies the Alejandro's committee as "the 
Alejandro's committee".
- in a way it is good as it permits the ICANN to survive a few weeks
- in another way this agenda ("to obtain control of the root" ) 
disqualifies the committee.

I would have accepted "to keep control of the root"/ Now we fully see that 
they only want POWER creep.

To fear an "all-business" vs "all-governement" proposition means that they 
think propositions can only be endorsed, not worked on. Will they get real 
and understand the decision has address positively the propositions of 
everyone: govs, business, non comms, registrants, registries, registrars; 
people, etc...

I still want to hope and we will develop the WECANN effort. Yet I feel 
Alejandro has nearly closed the shop.
jfc