[Membership] CIGREF comments on Icann membership

["Raoul Fuentes" <rfuentes@iteanu.com>]

Dear subscribers of Membership ML,
and members of MAC,

The present message is posted on behalf of the French CIGREF (Club 
Informatique des Grandes Entreprises Francaises), as a formal comment 
to the works undertaken by MAC and further suggestions.

We first provide a brief presentation of CIGREF hereafter (I.-), and 
CIGREF's comments themselves (II.-).


I. - Presentation of CIGREF

The CIGREF is an association which members are 86 large French 
companies representing 2/3 of the total turnover of 100 leading 
organisations in France with an expenditure of 100 billion FF in the 
domain of IT, and representing 90 000 Information System 
professionals. Except for IT suppliers, which may not be members of 
the association CIGREF Members comprise the full spectrum of sectors 
interested in the IT field.

The CIGREF has a long standing involvement in the Internet related 
topics, it is a member of AFNIC's board (registry of the .fr ccTLD) 
and has been deeply involved for many years in management of limited 
ressources such as Internet addresses, phone numbers and frequencies.

These comments are part of the formal comments submitted by CIGREF, 
which consist of comments on :

- Icann membership,
- DNSO applications,
- Registrar accreditation guidelines and shared registration system.

The full document of these issues can be found at :

    http://www.cigref.fr/cigref/cigref.nsf/$$pages/HomePublicGB


II. - Comments on Icann membership

1. Associations (both association of individuals and association of
corporations) should be eligible as Icann members. 

2. Associations (both association of individuals and association of
corporations) should be eligible as Icann board members. 

3. Corporations should be eligible as Icann members. 

4. Corporations should be eligible as Icann board members. 

5. We support IMAC's recommendation of no more than one Icann board
member elected by each SO in a specified region. 

6. Icann membership model 

6.1- Our preferred option is model 3 (so called " corporation " as 
per Greg Crew 's summary), which recognizes the vital role of
corporations in a sustainable growth of the internet. We would also
be in favor of an ombudsman for minority/developing interests, a
voting based on number of members in organization, and a requirement
for associations to document their ability to represent wishes of the
majority of their members. 

6.2- We do not support model 1 (individual) and model 2 (open), which
may lead to difficulties in the decision-making processes especially
due to the very poor protection against voting fraud, and could
ultimately slow down certain investments in e-business. Besides,
these models would probably mean insufficient funding, and
consequently a greater difficulty to achieve Icann's missions. 

6.3- Model 4, originally from Daniel Kaplan (so called 
" citizen/member "), also looks as a reasonable compromise and could 
match our goals, provided that associations of corporations are 
granted not just one vote, but several votes based on the number of 
their members (with a maximum value). 

7. Icann Board meetings and Names Council meetings are to take place
in the various specified regions, along with public meetings arranged
the day before. 

8. Official texts, including but not limited to RFC's and RFP's are
to be written in English and at least in a second language. We
propose the French language. 


Best regards,


Raoul FUENTES - mailto:rfuentes@iteanu.com
--------------------------------------------------
          ITEANU & Associes - Law Firm  
       166, rue Fbg St-Honore 75008 PARIS
e-mail: contact@iteanu.com - http://www.iteanu.com
--------------------------------------------------