Subject: Re: [iucg] [discuss] Conference: ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The Road to Sao Paulo, and Beyond, Singapore 21 March 2014

From: Elisabeth Blanconil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:57:40 +0100

Thank you William,

At 03:37 26/02/2014, you wrote:
>"ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The Road to São Paulo, and Beyond"

What seems interesting is that whatever the 
meeting may discuss or state the ICANN and our 
GIG "Beyond" is already determined: principles, 
globalization, institutional innovation, by ...
>17:15-17:45     Keynote Assessment by Larry 
>Strickling, Asst. Secretary of Commerce, Government of the United States.

After all, I think I should discuss the interplus 
2015 project governance rather than the old1983 
USG internet. Not the same generation....
But Gregory may be confused.
Hebe.

---

From: Elisabeth Blanconil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:08:44 +0100

At 09:17 27/02/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>Ad personam attacks add nothing but â€œnoiseâ€ 
>to this or any other list.  I suppose this is my 
>punishment for challenging the use of â€œVGNIC-speak.â€
>That said – am I the only one confused by the 
>reference to â€œinterplus 2015 project 
>governanceâ€?  If so, I look forward to someone 
>from outside the VGNIC sphere of influence explaining it.

You are the Gegory I refered to.
The is no attack! but care.
No punishment but kind concern about the problem 
you reported with our "VGNIC-speak".

You copied the [email-masked] mailing list. I am 
sure your input will be considered. We already 
gave a definition of CGN, VGNIC, VGNICS on our site for you.
We will probably put links to the IUCG details on 
PLUS, interplus, etc. which concerns the higher 
layers not yet fully supported by the IEN 48 project non-IETF completion.
But please, give us time. We are not paid for that. And proceed by consensus.

>If I am not the Gregory to which you refer, my apologies.

Loves means never having to say you are sorry.
Hebe.

---

From: Elisabeth Blanconil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:27:02 +0100

At 17:20 27/02/2014, John Curran wrote:
>On Feb 27, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Elisabeth Blanconil <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> > No punishment but kind concern about the problem you reported 
> with our "VGNIC-speak".
>
>Hebe -
>
>   It might significantly improve understanding of those on the 1net discuss
>   list if the IUCG community could use existing ICANN and Internet governance
>   terminology for its input on the list.  If this isn't possible, feel free
>   to disregard, but presently the lack of specific suggestions using common
>   vernacular may be inhibiting actual communication of ideas.

John,

I understand that. The problem is that if these terms existed 
(actually if the concepts had not been politically banned by the 
"ICANNly correct" for commercial and TM/IP reasons) there would be 
not need for the /1net debate, the Internet Governance, as I pointed 
it out from Joe Sims, the guy who designed ICANN, not being the ICANN 
cup of tea.

Through its mission creep in the early 2000s ICANN has imposed itself 
as being "THE" Internet Governance. This is an obvious BUG that is to 
be fixed.

We know how to fix it since most of us use the internet for years 
without using anything from ICANN. This is not because we oppose 
ICANN, this is just that ICANN is just a VGNIC as others. And, that 
the DNS internet security, surety and stability as organized by ICANN 
(its sole role as per Joe Sims) are middle grade and dependent from a 
government. Things which we do not trust. We demand a better QoS.

There is a general need for users (Govs, Industry, IUsers, etc.) to 
improve the effilience of their Internet. This is the main technical 
role of the IG. The way we use the Internet without ICANN is better 
than the way that ICANN proposes. However the ICANN contribution as 
the leading VGNIC is certainly a plus. This is why the WSIS has 
called for enhanced cooperation initiatives. In addition we 
technically fear that the ICANN's attitude leads to a more complex 
technical situation where national, private and civil VGNs could 
become more difficult to document and hence to use. In particular we 
fear an instability of the IONS that would affect the e-business. We 
also want CCN VGNs to be quickly experimented and supported, as well 
as to see experiment develop in the semantic addressing area and 
build upon the Wikimedia experiment.

In a nutshell we perfectly understand that some people wants to keep 
their 1983 terminology, but we are afraid they will only discuss a 
1983 IG and not our IUser 2014 IG. This is why there are two options: 
to continue like Jefsey advocated, to help improving an informed 
technical use towards the initial second (multi technology) phase of 
the Internet, or - if this is less confusing for some - to say that 
we switch to a next network generation. This is exactly the same. It 
is a question of terminology and of centricity. Either there is an 
evolution from decentralized to distributed. Or we say the network is 
distributed (period!) and we support it with what currently exists. I 
would favor that. The problem is the addressing plan management. Are 
addresses linked to the topology or to the hosts? The solution is 
that ITU or China, or Liecheinstein say: "I take over an IPv6 portion 
and I manage it according to the network topology, period. Addresses 
are NEVER owned by Hosts".

Hebe

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:01:21 +0100

>I do realize that some of the "new" terminology refers to existing 
>Internet concepts (only more generalized) but believe in the end 
>that it may be inhibiting ability of folks to understand the 
>specific recommendations that the IUCG are making when it comes to 
>ICANN, IANA functions, etc.
>
>It might significantly improve understanding of those on the 1net 
>discuss list if the IUCG community could use existing ICANN and 
>Internet governance terminology for its input on the list.  If this 
>isn't possible, feel free to disregard, but presently the lack of 
>specific suggestions using common vernacular may be inhibiting 
>actual communication of ideas.

Dear John,

you certainly realize then that most of the Internet Governance first 
level difficulties come from the appropriation of the general 
Internet concepts by ICANN reduced vernaculars . This is the way they 
have made believe they could have a monopoly on the namespace and its 
Governance. Freeing the governance from this pseudo monopoly 
penomenon (i.e. what people perceive) is simple: it only consists in 
using Internet general terms instead of those ICANN created for its 
limited scope. For example ICANN is the INTERNIC, i.e. the NIC of the 
Internet VGN. Told in using this Doug Engelbart/Jon Postel's term, it 
makes evident to everyone that it cannot be an internet governance 
monopoly. The same as FACEBOOK is the NIC of their own social virtual 
global network. And ORSN is another NIC for the Internet VGN. And 
INTLNET was the historical global NIC.

If you want to address the Internet Governance issue, you need to use 
IG terms. If you only want to discuss ICANN you can use ICANN words. 
The question in Sao Paulo, IGF and "beyond" is: do Govs and Telcos 
want to discuss ICANN or the internet or more (the whole digital 
system, the digisphere).

This is what our lawyers demand: not to use jargons. We misunderstand 
each other because some use general terminology and other local ones 
(ex. ICANN, or postal, or Twitter, etc. terminologies). A database is 
a database. A registry is a database where one does not delete 
information, just add new qualified ones. A directory such as the 
Whois is a directory, like the telephone or the postal directories.

The internet governance has specifics, but is not basically different 
from the road governance.

Cheers!
jfc

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:40:36 -0500

On Feb 28, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Jefsey <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
>> I do realize that some of the "new" terminology refers to existing Internet concepts (only more generalized) but believe in the end that it may be inhibiting ability of folks to understand the specific recommendations that the IUCG are making when it comes to ICANN, IANA functions, etc.
>> 
>> It might significantly improve understanding of those on the 1net discuss list if the IUCG community could use existing ICANN and Internet governance terminology for its input on the list.  If this isn't possible, feel free to disregard, but presently the lack of specific suggestions using common vernacular may be inhibiting actual communication of ideas.
> 
> Dear John,
> 
> you certainly realize then that most of the Internet Governance first level difficulties come from the appropriation of the general Internet concepts by ICANN reduced vernaculars.

Possibly the case, but still the choice of those who participate using
such terminology.

> This is the way they have made believe they could have a monopoly on the namespace and its Governance. Freeing the governance from this pseudo monopoly penomenon (i.e. what people perceive) is simple: it only consists in using Internet general terms instead of those ICANN created for its limited scope.

Excellent - then you are already free; congratulations!

> If you want to address the Internet Governance issue, you need to use IG terms. If you only want to discuss ICANN you can use ICANN words. The question in Sao Paulo, IGF and "beyond" is: do Govs and Telcos want to discuss ICANN or the internet or more (the whole digital system, the digisphere).

My review of all materials to date shows no indication of desire to discuss 
beyond the "ICANN" VGN (as you refer to it) and on direct related matters of
its governance.

/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone.

---

From: Elisabeth Blanconil <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:09:02 +0100

At 19:40 28/02/2014, John Curran wrote:
> > If you want to address the Internet Governance issue, you need to 
> use IG terms. If you only want to discuss ICANN you can use ICANN 
> words. The question in Sao Paulo, IGF and "beyond" is: do Govs and 
> Telcos want to discuss ICANN or the internet or more (the whole 
> digital system, the digisphere).
>
>My review of all materials to date shows no indication of desire to 
>discuss beyond the "ICANN" VGN (as you refer to it) and on direct 
>related matters of its governance.

That is correct on the US/ICANNers side!
I decidedly believe this is NOT the case on the Govs side.
I definitely know that this not the case on some business sides. Not 
to say among some CS groups.

Obviously you have your evaluation, and I have mine. This is why we 
want to check it through the HomeRoot experimentation. It will tell 
us how many people, corporations and Govs could use it. Or if we are wrong.
I am really free as you say. I do not belong to the "ICANN community" 
for a while. And I am not bound to their jargon. However, I am a 
techie. The HomeRoot project is to rationalize, simplify, support end users.
All we know is that there is a possibility to save M$ 77 per year, in 
leaving M$ 2 to ICANN.

Cheers!
Hebe