[ncdnhc-discuss] Resolutions

[J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin]

Dear Dany,
We are in a real world.

At 07:18 11/10/02, Dany Vandromme wrote:
>As a non-US citizen, I would not support such a California law centric
>definition of the Board members.
>Even if it happens to ICANN to be registered as a California company,
>this should be considered as an accident rather than a goal, and I would
>prefer the Board members "educated" in view of ICANN mission rather than
>binded by a local legislation.
>I would vote against, if I was going to attend the Shanghai meeting,
>which is not going to happen.

I would totally agree with you should ICANN was an NGO or changed its 
registration as ITU-ICANN.as it was proposed by ITU-T.

Since ICANN is a US Agency for Internet Names and Numbers (cf. Joe Sims 
clear wording on the GA), since the Shanghai decisions have been prepared 
for a very long time by the DoC/NTIA and probably in higher spheres, since 
ICANN has made clear the transition from current organization to the 
Shanghai organization would be discussed after the meeting and before the 
year's end, most probably as part of the Cyberspace Security WH plan, we 
only have to accept that we are here as paying guests of the AmerICANN. We 
then can only politely support the efforts of our hosts to be more informed 
and efficient.

I do regret the present situation. We tried as much as we could to avoid it 
and we will certainly continue to fight for a good cooperation in spite of 
everything. But the options taken by the US stakeholders (USG, MicroSign or 
ICANN Staff, legal Councils ...) are not only somewhat biased as you point 
it out, but most probably technically inefficient. Centralization and 
dominance will lead to a technical and social bottleneck and to a political 
blockage. They will develop security, and increase insecurity though these 
large and increased weaknesses. We had a good example. The US nets nearly 
collapsed over a file this week: it was a routing table, not even the 
master file. Only a bug, or may be a typo. Let imagine the chaos if such a 
reconfiguration had been scheduled on Sept/11 2001 morning.

We have the interests of 550 millions Europeans and historical duties 
towards billions of people. ICANN is a small detail into this. If it 
improves all the better. What we want is they understand they do not own 
the world, so we may work together, probably through ITU-I or any other 
international concertance system where ICANN will be win/winly share 
together with ".eu", ccTLDs, ITU for Enum, large nomenclatures, local, 
regional, national specialized Internet reps. Because this is necessary to 
a sustainable international development and to defend, protect and expand 
peace. Everyone's peace.
jfc