Subject: Re: [iucg] [IANAtransition] Redlined Scoping Document

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:44:07 +0200

At 01:45 14/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote:
>Michel stop baiting. I did not say exclusively. I said these 
>technical ideas are in scope and therefore could be considered.

Michel,

Vint does not want to plainly respond to your good questions: however 
he eventually said "could" where you tested for "should". Mike 
Roberts has had the guts to answer: "So far, the responses on this 
list and elsewhere are not encouraging". Their and my common reason 
is simple: the NTIA question is biased and leads to an aporetic 
dilemma: "do you want the Internet to be American along our plan B or 
your plan C?"

The reality is also very simple: the international catenet, under 
IETF logic or not, is our's. The question is to which kind of 
sovereignty does that "our's" resolve? Michael Gurstein is correct: 
the question of the NTIA is not only about the internet, but about 
the "internet world", i.e. our world, the world's governance, i.e. 
the world sovereignty.

Let disambiguate the root of the question (keeping in mind that it is 
iterative, since it concerns a systemic evolution).

1. what is the internet? Why is it so much associated with the DNS? 
What is the internet we want? as long as we do not agree on these 
points discussions are futile.
2. from history and architectonical thinking does the Internet need 
sovereignty?
3. if yes which kind of sovereignty? legal, moral, technical, 
societal, geographical, cultural, ethical, military, securitary, 
economical, etc.
4. which kind of apparatus does that sovereignty needs? imperial, 
aristocratic, diktyocratic, democratic, polycratic, by stake owners, 
status holders, stakeholders, multitude, people. What is the commonly 
accepted meaning of each of these terms?
5. what is the best common interest in a closed global system of 
interests as now is the internet, where only win/win or lose/lose 
situations are possible.

Then and only then,
- one can discuss the questions posed by the NTIA: is the world 
sovereignty to be localized (i.e. to some specific State [USA], to 
Nation-States [as UN or ITU outside of US control, or GAC embedded in 
an US registered ICANN?]).
- one can know how to follow the ICANN position which is (current 
Internet Coordination Policy # 3) which does not mention NTIA and 
calls for experimentation:

"ICANN's mandate to preserve stability of the DNS [...] means that 
ICANN continues to adhere to community-based processes in its 
decisions regarding the content of the authoritative root. Within its 
current policy framework, ICANN can give no preference to those who 
choose to work outside of these processes and outside of the policies 
engendered by this public trust.  None of this precludes 
experimentation done in a manner that does not threaten the stability 
of name resolution in the authoritative DNS. Responsible 
experimentation is essential to the vitality of the Internet. Nor 
does it preclude the ultimate introduction of new architectures that 
may ultimately obviate the need for a unique, authoritative root. But 
the translation of experiments into production and the introduction 
of new architectures require community-based approaches, and are not 
compatible with individual efforts to gain proprietary advantage."

At this stage, the NTIA aporetic proposition is an "individual effort 
to gain proprietary advantage" to say the least.

jfc

>On Apr 13, 2014 7:00 PM, "Michel Gauthier" 
><<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]> wrote:
>At 23:48 13/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote:
>>part of the process initiated by ICANN has the scope to look at 
>>additional technical safeg uards to limit the actions of IANA and 
>>the TLD operators to those actions both agree to.
>Dear Vint,
>I just want to be sure I do not misunderstand you, because this is 
>very important to everyone.
>You mean that you consider that the ICANN scope is the ***only*** 
>set of actions that is to be undertaken, with no additional 
>experimentation if not within the limits aproved by ICANN. Noother 
>backup option to be experimented. The internet users are to 100% 
>rely upon and to 100% trust ICANN. In other words that your entire 
>internet project is now to ***limit*** itself to the ICANN scope and 
>its internal safeguards?
>This in spite of the ICANN/ICP-3 own recommendations?
>What if NTIA disapproves ICANN?
>M G
>
>
>
>
>>v
>>
>>
>>On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Michel Gauthier 
>><<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]> wrote:
>>Dear Vint,
>>Thank you to reminding us that no one has ***ever*** changed a 
>>national or international communication system without being 
>>"sponsored" by a soverign authority (USG [FCC or NTIA] or 
>>monopolies): Mokapetris and Postel have not introduced any change 
>>in the file they received..
>>So, now you state: "it is possible to fashion sufficient 
>>accountability and transparency mechanisms as well as additional 
>>interlocks on root zone changes to eliminate the need for an 
>>institutional replacement for NTIA's oversight". Don't you think it 
>>isÃ‚Â  a big responsibility? Without any experimentation for the 
>>mechanism you only guarantee the possibility.
>>What do you think of those who want at least to experiment a back-up?
>>M G
>>At 21:09 13/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote:
>>>Seun,
>>>there are two separations in the present situation: NTIA as 
>>>contract holder and ICANN as contractor and the further 
>>>segregation of IANA as a distinct entity within the ICANN 
>>>framework. IANA is isolated from the production of policy although 
>>>i has to follow and execute policies developed in the ICANN 
>>>process and that are relevant to the IANA responsibilities. One 
>>>question on the table is whether the IANA functions require the 
>>>kind of NTIA oversight that has been in place since 1998. I would 
>>>recall that Jon Postel was largely left to his own resources 
>>>during his tenure (i.e. the USG did not intervene until he tested 
>>>the change from one master root zone server to another that 
>>>triggered a WH reaction). Jon was, of course, a key player within 
>>>the Internet development community and guided by and trusted by 
>>>his contemporaries. As many on these lists know, I believe it is 
>>>possible to fashion sufficient accountability and transparency 
>>>mechanisms as well as additional interlocks on root zone changes 
>>>to eliminate the need for an institutional replacement for NTIA's 
>>>oversight.Ã„€
>>>I appreciate your efforts to try to keep the discussion moving in 
>>>constructive directions.
>>>vint
>>>On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Seun Ojedeji 
>>><<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked] > wrote:
>>>Hello Milton,
>>>On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Milton L Mueller 
>>><<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > As Chip Sharp points out, there is a contractual requirement 
>>> for IANA staff to not
>>> > be involved in policy development (other than to respond to 
>>> questions), but that
>>> > is different than requiring the IANA Functions operator to be 
>>> separated from ICANN.
>>>OK, so you want to play semantic games. Look, everyone involved in 
>>>this discussion has noted multiple times that ICANN currently has 
>>>_functional_ separation, via C.2.5 and other requirements. Once 
>>>that contractual requirement is gone, the issue is how is that 
>>>separation maintained. Many Ã„€ believe structural separation will 
>>>be requuired. This was a point made in our original paper back on 
>>>March 3. Thanks for advancing the debate.
>>>
>>>What is functional and structural separation within the context of 
>>>this discussion?. I understand that by contract the IANA function 
>>>itself requires a separation on its own. The fact that it has a 
>>>separate department dedicated to it, make it a structural 
>>>separation within ICANN. I don't think structuring should always 
>>>have to do with setting up something outside of existing 
>>>organisation. (as i have always pointed out since the IGP proposal 
>>>was released)
>>>So you have pointed out the right issue; which is to discuss "how 
>>>to maintain the current separation" (that is already structural 
>>>and functional)
>>>Nevertheless as usual, i am open to be convinced on what aspect i 
>>>may have missed. ;)
>>>Thanks
>>>Regards
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>ianatransition mailing list
>>><mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
>>--
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Seun Ojedeji,
>>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>>web:Ã„€Ã‚Â  Ã„€Ã‚Â  Ã„âÃ„â‚¬Ã‚Â 
>><http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>>Mobile: <http://??>+2348035233535
>>alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> 
>><mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>ianatransition mailing list
>><mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
>>_______________________________________________
>>ianatransition mailing list
>><mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
>_______________________________________________
>ianatransition mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition