<div>Point well taken, Yehuda,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As you mention, I was indeed mistaken by the spacing and attributed the words to you. So my reminder is rather directed a M. Hanson (or Hansen). :-)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On substance, a very concrete element : the debate he refers to about the legal status of ICANN - and in particular the recent mention in the President's Strategic Report of the possible future evolution of its legal status has nothing to do with the RegisterFly debacle. It very much predates it and is on a completely different level.
<div> </div>
<div>The discussion is part of the delicate issue of the future institutional architecture of Internet Governance that occupied so much of the time of the WSIS. ICANN was incorporated as a non-profit California corporation in large part by lack of any other truly international structure available, apart from intergovernmental treaty organizations. Remember this was 1998.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The discussion today is about inventing the right type of framework for truly multi-stakeholder governance mechanisms, as Wolfgang and I have consistently argued. Examining existing models (such as the Red Cross or other Fertilizer association) is only food for thought and not a direct comparison in terms of functionalities. Nobody can claim he/she has the ultimate solution. And we all have a joint responsibility to invent it. As Saint Exupery said : "You cannot predict the future, but you can enable it".
</div></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The most difficult activity in the coming months and years will be to separate the right questions from conspiracy theories; and to do so without appearing to look down upon people who are coming into the discussion without the ten-year background information on the debates that already took place. in particular, could everybody accept that it is possible to point ICANN's shortcomings and try to remedy them, and at the same time recognize that people working in it and its board members in particular are also trying to do good and are not just mischevious machiavelian traitors to the cause of the global Internet Community ?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I see the present debate heating up with a mixture of attraction and fear : attraction because such discussions are long overdue and it is worth having them : the underlying issues are essential; but fear also because common sense can be easily overcome by righteous passions and mutual respect is rapidly lost in the process.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There is an important criteria to appreciate people's comments : do they help everybody understand the issues or somebody's position better ? do they introduce principles that unify or principles that divide ? do they help shape a better system, that will be more just and more efficient for everybody ? or will they generate more anger and opposition ?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The latter is easier. But let's give credit to those who try more constructive approaches. This does not mean there should be no debate, quite on the contrary, but just that it should pit ideas against ideas rather than people against people. Unless these people are renouncing their very humanity and, carried away by the seduction of their own arguments, become mere instruments of the ideas they believe in.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Looking forward to substantive and constructive contributions on the real question : what is the future institutional architecture of Internet Governance ? and where should it be discussed ? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bertrand<br>-- <br>____________________<br>Bertrand de La Chapelle<br>On a personnal basis and not as an official French position. <br>Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br><br>"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry
<br>("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/9/07, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:yehudakatz@mailinator.com">yehudakatz@mailinator.com</a></b> <<a href="mailto:yehudakatz@mailinator.com">yehudakatz@mailinator.com</a>
> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Bertrand,<br><br>Just to clairify, the statements were from an artical, and are not my words.<br><br><br><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/icann_registerfly_litigation">
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/icann_registerfly_litigation</a><br><br><br>I think the Author [Burke Hansen] a US citizen, realizes that ICANN was<br>incorporated as " a nonprofit public benefit corporation ... " and
<br><br>His point is in regards to ICANN working under the status of an International<br>Organization (Body), and using that status as an indemnifying shield, from<br>legal culpability.<br><br><br>The comparison He made was with the International Red Cross and International
<br>Olympic Committee (IOC)<br><br>re:<br><br>"... Why would ICANN need Red Cross-style international legal protections when<br>it's not out saving refugees and inoculating babies like the Red Cross? The<br>international organization that ICANN does have something in common with is one
<br>famous for its opaqueness and arrogant lack of accountability, the<br>International Olympic Committee (IOC). ICANN's not saving the world. Like it or<br>not, ICANN is engaged in commerce, not charity work, although it is a
<br>California nonprofit corporation. The IOC, too, is engaged in commerce, which<br>is marketing the Olympics and extorting stadium facilities out of local<br>communities. It would be unfortunate if ICANN were to take advantage of the
<br>RegisterFly mess as an excuse to lock itself away from public opinion the way<br>the IOC has. ..."<br><br><br>Being a US Non-Profit Organization, does not create an 'International Body', of<br>which sanctioning of its "International" status ironically could be done by the
<br>U.N.<br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all">