Subject: Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] From yesterday's interim: managing IANA operator change and avoiding confusion

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 20:40:03 +0200

At 19:57 08/10/2014, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>Agreement to minimize confusion seems fine; a requirement on ICANN 
>to declare that we have some authority is a non-starter from my perspective.

Allissa,

dont you think that where there is confusion it should be clarified 
rather than minimized? Is it not better to have a tough negociation 
today rather than a conflict further on? Do you mean that ICANN could 
have some authority on any structural issue? Their role is to govern, 
not to normalize.

Architectonics is the political science that deals with how things 
are. Governance is the political art to command to free (now 
interconnected) men. (Aristotle). The IETF area is the first one, the 
ICANN area is the second one. If we are not strict on this, we will 
add to confusion at the IETF level, and multiply confusion outside 
because others will create their own clearly separated documentation.

I think we miss the USCC position in this debate. What are they ready 
to accept from ICANN? or has Admiral Michael S. Rodgers already a 
budget for a IANATO?

We are discussing a new phase for a real world.
jfc

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:00:25 +0200

At 09:12 09/10/2014, Richard Hill wrote:
>I agree with Andrei.

Yes. But one does not change people and their habits. One change 
their context. Things are simple: if the nexus is not the USG anymore 
what will it be? ICANN/Business, ITU/Gov, IUse/people, a World 
Digital Organization, or chaos? Unless some want the IETF to be that 
nexus, the IETF is not to side with one camp but to make sure the 
internet is ready for the context resulting from any of them.

> > Yes, the authority doesn't come from a contract. But the contract can
> > help minimize possible confusion in the future. The hardcoded registry
> > location is a pretty strong lever in whatever possible future
> > negotiations, IMO.
> >
> > Andrei

Note: I know most of the people on the ianaplan mailing list do not 
read my posts. They are writen for those who work for an intelligent 
world for all rather than a world of intelligence on all and for the 
coming negociation background and probable (?) IETF higher layers 
fork. This is ***their*** decision - unless the IESG, IAB, ISOC

jfc

PS. The GSN concept that guide the world: "A global solution network 
consists of diverse stakeholders, organized to address a global 
problem, making use of transnational networking, and with membership 
and governance that are self-organized". This has a name: in 
politics, a lobby, in the real world, an enhanced global coalition of 
global interests and RFC 6852 communities toward the RFC 6852 "huge 
bounty". Such nexus architectonically oppose a WSIS people centered society.

http://gsnetworks.org/sponsorship/
http://www.libertyglobal.com/about-us.html
http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/
http://www.rbc.com/aboutus/index.html
http://google.com
etc.