[EURO-Discuss] Regional advice on France at Large application needed

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon Apr 28 21:43:11 EDT 2008

Dear Wolf,
First point, I do not want to create a contentious issue between us 
and ICANN while we have _many_ other priorities preparing the World 
Internet Week de Paris (http://wiw.de-paris.info). So, these mails 
will not be copied immediately on our general list which has now 23 
members, nor to the 700 Members (including ICANN Board Member) FGI 
list. However, your mails did leaked and the first questions are coming in.

For seven years I am used to explain people round the world and in 
France that ICANN does not disregard the @large, just ingnores them. 
Do not be afraid, I will manage to explain them that ALAC does 
better. But I cannot know what people will do with it.

At 01:26 29/04/2008, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
>Dear Jefsey,
>as I mentioned before in (one of) my mails to Vittorio, I don't want 
>to make my opinion regarding your application to a personal affair. 
>As I mentioned before as well, there were several people ­ mostly 
>independent and unbiased - looking at your application and showing 
>up with almost the same questions again. This is anything else but a 
>conspiracy, perhaps a surprising coincidence.
>As it seems to me after today's discussion, we cannot come up with 
>an unanimous position from the EURALO board and membership at the 
>very moment and until April 30 (deadline of the ALAC decision after 
>consultation with the RALO concerned). Therefore let me ask you the 
>following questions â€" what you partly suggested (if I understood 
>it well) in your response:

Before answering this, I need to understand better an organisation we 
are just joining.

Let me first ask you what is your job in this case, what is the role 
of the people in copy. You are not on the published ALAC lists. I 
went to the ICANN site and looked for a few names to understand who 
(except Cheryl) are the people you involve in Cc, who are the four 
decision makers and the three members of the Staff you discuss. All 
this sounds pure rigmarole to me, when you probably try to follow one 
of the many bureaucratic ICANN procedures.

- Ludwig Wolf = one (your application)
- france at large = four (not ours yet)
- Langdon-Orr = nineteen.
- Massimilino Minisci = None.
- Jefsey, Jefsey Morfin or JFC = 1743.

This may explain me some of the oddities I do not understand. May be, 
could you please explain what is exactly the internal procedure you follow.

>1- Could you, given the fact that your application is controversial, 
>accept a prolongation of the ALAC approval deadline by ­ let's say ­ 
>two months or the end of the 32nd ICANN Public Meeting in Paris? 
>This would give us a chance to sit together in Paris and to 
>re-discuss all the open and unclear questions and inconsistencies 
>regarding your application.

Let me clarify. I revived france at large after so many years of ICANN 
disinterest in what we consider @larges are. This is only to try to 
help ICANN stabilize better in the societal and cultural changes we 
are involved in. france at larege being an ALS is of interest to ICANN 
only if we welcome ICANN in Paris as an ALS. We registered for that 
in due time. We _do_not_understand_ all this fuss. I must say that I 
only take it as personal, what I am used to. I am also used to 
politically win. But I do not see the reasons of the fight.

>2- Could you, in the meantime, forward all supplementary information 
>needed to the ICANN staff in charge or the EURALO board to better 
>answer the existing questions and clarify inconsistencies?

Let me kindly ask you if you are pulling my leg? At the present time 
I know no question. I just learned today about a circulated document 
which is purely absurd. It only shows that author does not know about 
mailman, nor about the law.

>3- Could we sort out controversial points regarding France at Large's 
>application, in the time frame mentioned, before referring to other 
>instances (such as Ombudsman or media)?

Please do not call "inconsistent" or "controversial" what only 
reflect lacks in the Staff review of our registration. I have no 
intent, if we can avoid it, on such a trivial issue, to bother Frank 
Fowlie and the Board. But you have to realise that france at large is 
known to journalists in France as the odd people who want to help the 
ICANN transition. And I am also known. We have started the 
http://wikicann.org site to document this help and inform the press, 
media and public independently. It was very recently started : you 
can go and check that it was already accessed 2300 times. These are 
not things prepared at the last minute. I am not the master of what 
will be published when people discover your mails.

>As you may know, the RALO concerned can only express its opinion and 
>recommendation on an application and ALAC will take the decision. 
>Therefore it’s on ALAC to decide on any prolongation in this 
>matter but I wanted to sort out the options of a potential solution 
>in the interest of the RALO concerned.

As france at large, I am only concerned by the interest of ICANN and of 
our members. This necessarily demands a war/cooperation decision of 
ICANN to be reached before two weeks. I am certainly ready to provide 
answers to professional questions, but I have difficulties 
understanding what I have not provided yet in our file and on the phone.

I certainly understand how it is embrassing. All this seems to be new 
both to us and to ICANN/ALAC. Let just address it professionnally. It 
should only be smooth. (Just for your information I am moving my 
office and I have most of my stuff packed).


>I would appreciate your answers to the questions I raised. Thanks and
>best regards,
>  JFC Morfin wrote Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:20:
> >:-)
> >Interesting.
> >
> >I sent the "application". It was not acknowledged. Ten days later on
> >I sent a mail back. And I was told that application was received. I
> >noted several times that I had no news. Nick mailed me he would send
> >a mail. But bever did. Then eventually Frederic called not being
> >interested in knowing me nor our history and organisation but why we
> >had no budget, and having an urgent call. Then he called for a longer
> >time, but this nice fellow is still young in the organisation. Then
> >he wanted to call our execom people. But never did. Someone told him
> >ICANN was the e-UN of the future.
> >
> >Then I see today a form completed by Massimiliano. Who ever
> >Massimiliano is, I do not know him (so many new people in ICANN). The
> >very first thing he should have done would be to forward the document
> >to me, so we could discuss all its errors. You may also realise that
> >as the eldest @large incorporated organisation, and as a pioneer of
> >the Internet myself, I find this rather ...., ...., and hurting.
> >
> >Now, I have a question. Is ALAC real?
> >What do you want me to do to answer the questions you never raised ?
> >Fly to Australia.
> >jfc
> >
> >PS. You right, I explained Frederic that this will only be a case for
> >Brother Fowley. BTW if some wants to be sure we exist, we can come a
> >"few" of us at the Paris meeting, but then you have to select a
> >larger room. For the time being I do not copy this on the mailing
> >list not to upset our Members. But I said that I needed an answer
> >under 3 months since I applied, because I told them in February we would.
> >
> >
> >
> >At 20:07 28/04/2008, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> >
> >>Wolf Ludwig ha scritto:
> >> >> In any case, in the application that was circulated to the EURALO
> >> >> list on March 5 I really see no grounds for rejection. If there are
> >> >> other documents, please forward them to the list.
> >> >
> >> > Attached please find the DD form dated March 27 which was the basis
> >> > of our discussions and considerations of the given case.
> >>
> >>Ok, so we have an interesting case in which the staff's due diligence
> >>claims things that are opposite to what the applicant says. From this
> >>due diligence form I see one fundamental question: are the 17 members
> >>real and active, or not? (since, according to the due diligence, there
> >>is no membership list and no mailing list, and the Web page seems to
> >>have been created just recently)
> >>
> >>I see also a point about the secretariat being the only managing entity,
> >>but that's normal as long as the secretariat is elective (acting like a
> >>Board). It's not normal if the secretariat is not elected by the
> >>members. So what's the case?
> >>
> >>Ciao,
> >>--
> >>vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> >>-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>EURO-Discuss mailing list
> >>EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlar 
> ge-lists.icann.org
> >>
> >>Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
> >
> >
>phone +41 79 204 83 87
>Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
>http://blog.allmend.ch -
>Digitale Allmend

More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list