Subject: Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] Suggested text

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 07:20:39 +0200

At 22:37 10/10/2014, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Clearly, past experiences which are not applicable to the current 
>situation are distorting some judgments about how to proceed today.

Correct. And this is true for everything, including the technology 
deployment as it has been affected by the IANA oversight through the 
"status-quo" strategy. The post-partum internet will be inherently 
different from the ante-partum internet.

>You need to understand that you are not bargaining with ICANN, as 
>you were in 1999-2000. You are making a proposal to the NTIA, which 
>is then supposed to require ICANN to abide by it. I don't know how 
>many times I have to reiterate this simple fact.

Correct. I don't know either how many times I have to reiterate the 
simple fact that the NTIA own's new environment is (1) the 
post-Dubai/Snowden context, (2) the RFC 6852 uncompletely documented 
normative paradigm and (3) the natural "IUse" trend, i.e. a free and 
individually/communinitarily autonomous lead user approach of the 
Internet utilization.

>Lots of problems could intervene (the US congress, for example), but 
>one problem we do not have is ICANN's counsel not allowing them to 
>do what a finalized proposal from ICG asks them to do.

Correct. But be sure that their/our legal counsels will certainly 
influence the ante-partum finalization of the proposal finalization 
process. The same as people like you and me, communities of technical 
interests, and Govs will try to influence the whole 
technical/political context through technical break-throughs (such as 
the MYCANN Plug-in) and/or political influence (as your mails). No 
one reasonable can accept that their daily global digital presence 
and investments depend on an unaccountable zombicann structure.

jfc

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:08:54 +0200

At 16:47 10/10/2014, Eliot Lear (elear) wrote:
>NTIA, ICANN, and the IETF must take steps to leave no doubt but that 
>they are in the public domain.

Unfortunately they are not. BCP 78 is not CC. This is the whole issue.
jfc