Subject: Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism?

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 01:17:33 +0800

On Mar 26, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Jefsey <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The first question should be "what is MSism". I have posted this definition and its comparison with polycracy. I am surprised by the resulting general agreement (no one opposed). I therefore copy it to some other mailing lists, so we have a common working basis.

JFC - 
 
   Lack of response does not indicate "general agreement" nor "no one opposed"; 
   it simply indicates "lack of response".   To refer to it otherwise is disingenuous. 

   However, I do have some good news, in that I will respond to your proposed   
   MS definition (i.e. "It is to polycracy the equivalent of monarchy to democracy. 
   Technically, MS proceeds from a root/server/client hierarchic model") and note
   that I believe it to be contrary to existing usage of the term and otherwise without
   merit.  (The good news being that now you _can_ summarize your responses 
   received, the result being "overwhelmingly opposed"...)

   In keeping with the George's proposed etiquette or the 1net discuss list, I shall
   make the observation that our views are quite divergent, likely irreconcilable,
   and thus my constructive suggestion is that you find a mailing list of those of
   similar beliefs, and refine your ideas in that forum (I've included the cc's on this 
   reply to aid in that process, but ask that you refrain from cross posting in the 
   future, and simply use one forum of like-minded folks to continue your efforts.)

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone (although I may be able to safely omit it this time...)

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 19:36:02 +0100

At 18:17 26/03/2014, John Curran wrote
> otherwise is disingenuous.

Pretty obvious. But it obliges people to explain what they pretend to 
knowingly discuss.

>    merit.

You can believe what you want as long as you document it. Every creed 
welcome: this is a HR.

>  (The good news being that now you _can_ summarize your responses

Up to now this is (surprisingly) inexact. But I know, MSism would 
ceased to be a magic trick if it was investigated.

Now, when a camailla invades an open public space it is not 
surprising that the real world majority is not welcome :-) May I 
remember you that we are discussing a matter where the world majority 
in Dubai has opposed your vision. Also that our minority has 
aggregated by loyalty around the now retiring NTIA, which has found a 
better strategy. One can therefore consider that the transfer to 
ICANN is its sacrifice to this new strategy. The USG has measured 
where was its best interest, and plays it very well. They let you drop.

The problem is to know how one can reasonably reach a balanced 
transition. You do not help it in sticking to positions that the NTIA 
abandons to ICANN  (with glorious words, I acknowledge it). You do 
not help in refusing (by despite? or unbelief of the change) that we 
reach out to you.

>    make the observation that our views are quite divergent, likely 

Correct, from your rigid point of view, at this time.

Totally uncorrect from mine. You are part of  a VGNIC structure. The 
largest one so far. But the time for VGNICs fair competition has 
come. Introducing competition does not means killing the incumbent. 
However it means for the incumbent not to block the new commers. 
Otherwise it will be sued (best) or opposed and will lose. I fully 
understand this is new to you, and it is difficult to accept (while 
it seems so unlikely) and adapt. You feel you are still the big one: 
this is true, but the NTIA has accepted that you are not the only one 
anymore. And the spirit of the law, and probably the jurisprudence, 
and the law once the Congress has understood the opportunity, is 
against your position.

This deregulating datacommunications. Not my decision: the ITU vote 
for an increased regulation and the USG cute reponse.

>    future, and simply use one forum of like-minded folks to 

I thought you would be more MSist. The attempted trick is 
understandable, but is poor.

We have an open mailing list established by the inculbent to convene 
a debate on MS-IG. We are two stakeholders. You for ARIN, depending 
on ICANN, me for VGNICs depending on IUsers. And all what you can 
tell me amount to say: "please I cannot resist, Dubai, Snowden, VGNs, 
the NTIA retirement, and now Marco Civil by our co-host, what next? 
Please leave me die in peace...".  I will only do it by force for the 
whole world to see.

We do not want you to die. We want you to behave as what you claim 
you are: a stakeholder. Not a monopoly component anymore, but a 
stand-alone stakeholder in our common enhanced cooperation. We just 
want you to adapt to the new reality of the legal rather than 
political US leadership strategy attempted by the NTIA.

As loyal US allies, we are ready to help, but our priroities is to 
our nations, people and ourselves. If you do not want us, you will 
end irritating us! And we will be many, many more than you. With 
everyone his HomeRoot and SuperIANA.

Cheers.

jfc

Cheers !
jfc

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:13:44 +0800

On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:36 AM, Jefsey <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Totally uncorrect from mine. You are part of  a VGNIC structure. The largest one so far. But the time for VGNICs fair competition has come. ...

JFC - 

  I actually acknowledged your interesting multiple VGNIC perspective
  long ago (see 1net discuss email from me earlier on the 1st and 2nd
  of this month), so you can stop proselytizing.

  The difference in viewpoint is that I also recognize that the folks
  in the "ICANN VGNIC" (using your terminology) have the right to use
  the 1net list for discussion of problems that they see in governance
  of this particular VGNIC, using the terminology and definitions that 
  they see most appropriate. You acknowledged this right of VGNIC self-
  organization and determination, but then repeatedly have attempted to
  insert terminology which has not been accepted by those participating 
  in this discussion.

  I fully acknowledge you have the right to your beliefs and framework, 
  but your continued interference to those who which to discuss Internet 
  governance within this particular Internet scope (using the terminology
  of their own choice) is both disruptive and inconsistent with the 
  claimed VGNIC framework you repeated try to foist on this community...

  As such, I was just letting your know that I see no need to respond
  further, and was suggesting that you might find a mailing list that 
  contains folks with beliefs similar to yours to be helpful in working
  out some of these kinks in your VGNIC framework.

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.

---

From: Michel Gauthier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 23:24:03 +0100

>   of this month), so you can stop proselytizing.

John,

I have some difficulty understanding you. You and I agree with a 
technical analysis that seems clear and obvious. There is not other 
way to name it. But you call proselitism using it? This could be 
understandable if there was a single known case. But there are many 
other "VGN" occurrences. How do to call them all?

M G

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 02:43:56 +0100

At 21:04 26/03/2014, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>This does not appear to be a topic matching the charter of the 
>Internetgovtech list.  Pleas stop copying the internetgovtech list 
>with this discussion.

Joel,

Sorry, I kept responding with the same distribution as I received. 
However, there is a key issue for the IETF in this, I have to sort 
with ICANN and Govs. I wish to get a guidance from the IAB on its 
position. It is following:

1. let assume that ICANN fails to meey the NTIA expectation or that 
the world actually sticks to the Dubai vote. I feel the IETF context 
would be divided and some constraints on the technology, even in the 
end to end layers, might occur. How to prepare the IETF to such a 
situation? Probably not in pursuing my appeal to ISOC (I delay and 
delay IRT RFC 6852), but how to addres its targret: the lack of 
general appeal process, a matter the EU has now endorsed (I warned 
you of the possibility).

2. MSism as I analyse it, as well as others (ex. Michael Gurstein 
http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/) 
does not fully contradict the IETF RFC 3935 which acknowledges the 
need of "leaders" for IETF on occasions, but institutionalizes 
multi-leaders statements (OpenStand, Montevideo, support to the NTIA) 
that by-pass the IETF participants consensus and cannot be appealed 
(as my RFC 6852 appeals shown it).

I include Brian in this threat because he objected to a Technical 
Governance on the discuss list with arguments I partly agree or 
strongly disagree with, and because he is British. So, he is able to 
evaluate in his own way the EU position, with his architectural 
judgment I respect. I must add that as French/European citizen, I do 
not share the US citizens' tendancy to object to their own 
Governement involvement. I understand but object the NTIA's desire 
that governement are not involved in the IG. My rationale is simple:

- objecting to a democratic representation cannot be democratic, so 
there is a conceptual unballance with IETF values.
- we need the assistance of our government if we have to collectively 
sue an US based organization.
- code is law (what is clearly observed in reality). This has a 
corollary: law influences the code. NTIA transfers the US internet 
influence from political to legal areas. I think it is initially a 
good move for the US; but it calls for an update of the 1996 
Telecommunication Act far more important that the 2004 attempt. This 
lies with the Congress. I do not trust the Congress to provide 
quickly a clarification between plug, edge, end and fringe. For 40 
years they only know basic vs. enhanced. When I started discussing 
ONES (Open Edge Network Systems/services) at the WG/OPES, I was not 
followed ny then because it was not in the Charter. Now it is the 
core of my preoccupation as an IUser (informed user) because I want 
to protect the fringe to fringe user side from any legal border creep 
from Edge Providers, Broadband Operators, etc. in US jargon. I want a 
network neutrality which will insure a multi access network 
transparency to multihoming ISP rotation.

My lone-no-money strategy is to use the VGN concept (my PC + shared 
global catenet capabilities under TCP/IP + the extended technologies 
solutions I need) now it has been freed by Snowden. It is/will be 
based on the HomeRoot/SuperIANA experimentations within the 
ICANN-ICP-3 framework. The SuperIANA targets the documentation of the 
VGN Masters when they build their own VGNICs about their end to end 
internet, possible edge additions and their fringe to fringe layer 
six extended services technologies.

Stability should proceed from a strict respect of the IANA inputs 
into the SuperIANA in an IUser oriented terminology, presentation, 
etc. This will be most probably maintained as a peers' wiki. But we 
will need help/cooperation if to be sure we can stay immune from 
Google, Putin, CNNIC, i-DNS, etc. and different technologies: you are 
allied with W3C, more or less with ITU, but what about ONS/GS1, 
Namecoin, CCNX, etc.? In addition there always is the problem of 
Unicode and of the linguistic tables.

The HomeRoot and SuperIANA project will proceed. VGN will be 
documented and increasingly deployed, experimentaly as far as I 
suggest them to proceed. But they will probably politically/FLOSS 
develop beyong my moderation. Our need is for a unified namespace and 
numbering plan that is as much as possioble compatible with the 
Internet practice, so VGNs may deploy seamlessly, as simple "master 
and masters" additions to the client/server current use. This will 
take time as the IUCG experience shows it, but no one knows how fast 
an innovative proposition may develop.

Up to you; stakeholder leaders.

jfc