[EURO-Discuss] Improvement of the win-win relationship between the Staff and the At-Large Community
JFC Morfin
jefsey at jefsey.com
Wed Jun 11 08:53:01 EDT 2008
At 13:24 11/06/2008, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>Wolfgang:
>External pressure is always good but you should not say good bye
>before you havestarted to try to do something.
hmm... I do things for 9 years :-)
I am not kissing good-bye. They just do not want us in :-)
Because they know that external pressure is more efficiently managed
when you are in?
>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 brings 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 recognized
>and well accepted key player in a decentralized system.
ICANN and IETF want the internet to be decentralised under them.
Real life world is distributed.
The "conflict" with @larges is that the digital ecosystem is
therefore distributed under @larges (WSIS's Society of Information as
people centric). This is what the initial by-laws accepted in giving
50% to the Future (@large) and 50% to the Legacy. But the Legacy won
at ICANN, and UK representing Europe in Tunis also agreed in giving
the Legacy control to the USA (and emergent issues to the IGF). This
is why ICANN must support status quo and contain @larges, as long as
they do not have a clear understanding of their future mission.
ICANN is quite consistent with itself. Our role is to help/force it
to stay consistent with reality. For 9 years my ICANN motto is "get real".
>Wolfgang
>I did not really undertand the disucsison on france at large. You will
>help me to understand it better in Paris.
We did not either. And we still do not even understand the answer we
received in English. (We do not expect French to be clearer, but the
text to have been reworded. This is probably why translations will
take months).
>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
I said BoD in thinking to the one who is in control :-) (he actually
is the one who signs the Staff's pay checks !)
He has an architectural policy, as Google has another one. I have a
third one. This boils down to where the IANA is. At ICANN, at Google
or at each @large. Which one is the most stable, secure, resillient,
innovative and credible: none scores 5/5 today due to the credibility
factor computed from what people think, not from what things are. I
do not oppose this: this is an Internet traditional way to filter our
crazy ideas: "running code". "Test it !"
We could have done it together (this is what ICANN proposed in 2001
[ICP-3]). france at large did it on a large scale enough, and as per
ICANN requirements. We know we are wasting time now. We also know it
is a startegy against us :-)
jfc
More information about the EURO-Discuss
mailing list