[EURO-Discuss] Improvement of the win-win relationship between the Staff and the At-Large Community

Wed Jun 11 07:24:01 EDT 2008

Thanks JFC

I do not know whether I am really ICANN centric. I am more Internet centric and if ICANN in the cneter of the Internet than I can accept this. It is not a secret that I am a long time critical supporter of ICANN. Regardless of all the failures and setbacks, I see ICANN as the best of all worst case scenarios we have so far for the future of Internet Governance.  I also have the impression that ICANN has still a lot of potential, that it is still a laboratory and that ICANN 3.0 will look much better than the original version. It is up to the community to make ICANN better and better.

Anyhow, below are some comments ot your comments

wolfgang    

________________________________

Von: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von JFC Morfin
Gesendet: Mi 11.06.2008 12:37
An: Discussion for At-Large Europe
Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Improvement of the win-win relationship between the Staff and the At-Large Community

Dear Wolfgang,
I suppose that these answers are also here to be discussed? Your
points are well made. We obviously have a slightly different vision
of the network.May I say that I feel you are more ICANN centric, ISO
is user centric and WSIS and I are person centric (this in my mind is
neither a critic, nor a something very differentiated, just a flavor
- evolutions and transitions make the things fuzzy anyway).

At 10:45 11/06/2008, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Medienstadt Leipzig e.V., EU-RALO:
>
>1.   What issues being debated in ICANN do you believe are the most
>important to your RALO?
>User and consumer rights, in patricular with regard to the so-called
>ICANN issues (including freedom of expression, date protection,
>privacy, prices, security, stability, diversity, multilingualism)

JFC:

I fear there is a mission creep when you speak of freedom of
expression? IMHO, ICANN claims two products:
- IANA operations
- NTIA root g/sTLD coordination

Wolfgang:

No it is not FOE or so as such, it is the FOE dimension of the management of critical resources (FOE & new gTLD is just one exmaple) 

>2.   How can we help make the time you spend on ICANN issues as
>valuable and efficient to you as possible?
>a. To avoid long and time consuming buerocratical procedures and discussions
>b. to concentrate on substance and relevant issues
>c. to imrpove the interaction with other ICANN constituencies
>d. to work towards a more significant AL representation in the BoD
>(from Voice to Vote)

JFC:

Amen. Except that Staff cannot work against corporate policy rules
and by-laws without a BoD reformation mandate. My feeling is that it
is up to us to obtain that mandate. Since we only have Voice and no
Vote, we can only use external pressure until ICANN respects its Charter again.

Wolfgang:

External pressure is always good but you should not say good bye before you havestarted to try to do something. 

>3.   What challenges and opportunities do you see for your RALO and
>for At-Large more generally (in the context of ICANN work)?
>
>ALAC and the RALO mechanism have a great opportunity (and
>responsibility) to become the center of gravity for individual
>Internet users around the globe.

JFC:

I disagree it would be an opportunity for the Internet community
(please remember that a global system is a closed system and there
are only win/win or lose/lose situation). In a distributed system a
center of gravity is bring the system back to decentralization. This
would introduce/maintain a rigidity which would split the network.

Wolfgang:

Yes and know My wording is obviously misleading. The way you put it you are right. My point is that ALAC/RALO should become a recognozed and well accepted key player ina decentraliced system. 

>If ICANN can achieve this, it will be much safer against a new wave
>of efforts by various (governmental) groups to get a more direct
>governmental oversight over the management of critical Internet
>ressources.  This is in particular important in the context of the IGF.

JFC:

If Governments were a danger through the IGF it would mean that
@larges have poorly participated to the IGF they obtained. @larges'
legitimacy as the IGF leaders (as being in each of the poles of
governance as we made them defined and documented) is THE @large
dramatic success at the WSIS. The IGF is "us", the ALAC may be "you"
when ICANN is "they".

This is were we have two different point of view: for you @larges
should help ICANN to control the Internet, for me @larges should help
ICANN to become the best possible example of support of the @large
control on their own Internets throughout the common Internet.

Wolfgang:

I do not see the contradiction. ICANN will never control the Internet. Nobody cn control the Internet. ICANN coordinates some critical components. And users shuold have a say in how this is planned and executed. A strong ICANN  is not bad but ICANN will get strong only with a strong at large.  

>  4.   How interaction between and within RALOs be increased?
>
>Specialized F2F meetings, also on the local/rgional level are important.

Yes.

>  Workshops, Round Tables etc. with opportunities for remote
> participation are very helpful but have to be prepared carefully.
> There has to be substance für such events, not just "coming
> together and strengthening relationships". A workplan which would
> identify three to five main priority topics for individual Internet
> users for a period of three or five years would helpful. Based on
> working papers, such a process could produce a discussion around
> issues aimed at a final document which could lead to an "At Large
> Publication Series" where users get quick access to answers.

JFC:

I am somewhat less practically optimistic than you. There is a
growing france at large/FGI-FR consensus that we need a new
comprehensive set of tools, based upon the state of the art (webDAV,
RSS, ATOM, Wiki, Semantic Wiki, Mioga2, and more to come) to build an
on-line maieutics oriented towards a new ad-hoc understanding of
documents and document presentation to support multiconsensus (to
possibly present in the same document opposing local consensus and
their interoperations possibilities).

Wolfgang:

Agreed, more toosl Internet based no "classical academic staff" are need.  You are right. 

>5.   What are the top three things you would like your RALO to achieve?
>a. to stablize its still fragile institutional structure
>b. to do more outreach to get a sub-regional geographical balance
>(in case of EU-RALO this means CEEC, Russia but also Northern Europe
>(Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Greenland)

.... and france at large :-)

>c. to produce more substance / input

Yes. But I am afraid there is a big split between the world as ICANN
wants us to evangelize it and the world as we observe and make it. To
realise that, I suggest you access our flow-chart:
http://franceatlarge.org/org.htm.

We have not understood the second reason why Staff opposed
france at large, but we feel it is because a part from not existing, we
are existing too much. This, certainly is a problem. What an ALS is
permitted to do. There is a confusion to clarify in Paris : @larges
are Internet @larges, not only ICANN @larges (at least in our
opinion). This is why we consider much substance, including but not
dedicated substance about/for ICANN.

Wolfgang

I did not really undertand the disucsison on france at large. You will help me to understand it better in Paris.

>d. to become a key player in the EURO-IGF

you are more than welcome - both to http://euro-igf.eu <http://euro-igf.eu/>  and http://euro-igf.org <http://euro-igf.org/> .

>6.   What are the top three things you believe ICANN Staff could do
>to help your RALO?
>a.reduce the  burocratical barriers to get things done
>b.organize financial support for local and regional activities
>c. fight for ALAC interests and positions within the ICANN burocracy
>d. help to transform ALAC into an ALSO which would give the AL the
>same right as the three other SOs have, that is to send two voting
>directors to th Board.

As I indicated, c and d are things Staff cannot loyally do unless for
example we obtain a joint review committee to be convened by the BoD.
These are things ALAC should certainly do.

I will give you an example of key mission for an ALSO. ICANN is in
charge (MoU with IETF) of the IANA operations and of what is related
to Names and Numbers, IETF retaining control on Parameters (even if
ICANN tend to pretend it is in charge of Parameters too). Now there
is another important IANA area which is not allocated which is the
description of the inter-users direct exchange protocols. This means
all what users need to communicate in addition to addresses, domain
names and protocol parameters. This includes for example : language
documentation (IANA ccTLD Tables and Language Sub-Tag Registry), new
product specifications (ALSO should review all the IETF/WG-Charters
as IAB does. IAB is for architectural consistency, ALSO should be for
usage convenience and interoperability with non-Internet solution of
the digital convergence. Netiquette should also be documented, there.
Terminology too. Etc...

Wolfgang:

Agreed, but even if in your opinion ALAC staff would become illoyal if they do c&d we should ask for doing this. The staff is not an instrument to control the consituencies, the staff is a service provider for the consituencies. This is my reading from the ICANN bylaws. And this is part of a bigger story if it comes to the relaitonshipo between the Board and the ICANN staff

_______________________________________________
EURO-Discuss mailing list
EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/> 