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

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 18:04:29 +0200

At 14:19 12/10/2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>Something I really don't understand here:  The NTIA transition is 
>explicitly a contractual matter - why the reluctance to deal with 
>contractual and legal issues?

For the simple reason that we, the member of this list, are not 
lawyers, and for most not considering this issue as an international 
law case. Actually they are told not to.

This may also be that the NTIA is attempting a "multi-stakeholder" 
non-democratic minority coup against the Dubaï democratic (both in 
terms of States and of represented people) vote. This is not 
surprising since the USG Executive branch, of which the NTIA is a 
part, also oversights the NSA democratic usages.

>For that matter, why is it that IETF is the entity responding to the 
>TCG, not the legal entity involved (IETF trust or ISOC - it's 
>getting harder and harder to keep track of the players, without a scorecard).

The IETF Trust is the tool to support BCP 78, which is the non-CC RFC 
license. The whole things is the ISOC GSN (1) dtrategy. This approach 
was documented by Lynn St-Amour (on this list) and Don Tapscott in a 
very long Press Release accompanied by two big books published on 
.... March 4, 2014. It was their immediate reaction to the NTIA 
annoucement in reaction to the unexpected NETmundial unexpected 
decision by Fadi and Dilma 
http://gsnetworks.org/blog/governing-the-internet-a-new-era-begins/

The Lynn/Don's strategy for the Internet this WG is engineered to 
help endorsing results from a several years cooperation that is 
documented on Don's site:
http://martinprosperity.org/media/GSN%20Prospectus%20101012.pdf
http://martinprosperity.org/media/R%20GSN%20Prospectus%202013.pdf
etc.

This can be described as a mutially selected/recognised stakeholders 
aristocracy doctrine to counter a fractal (independent of the scale) 
democratic legimacy and deny its ultimate mulitude's polycratic 
mechanisms (the way democracy works without states) the network 
technology leads to and enforces. The efficient internet of the 
dominants vs. the interneted people's life. They know better than me 
what makes me happy ....

jfc

---- notes ----

(1) "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 is the not-at-all democratic thinking behind 
the US "multi-stakeholderism". It is introduced by Don Tapscott 
(http://dontapscott.com/) Lynn St-Amour
Martin Properity,

This thinking is engineered by GSN sponsored among others by 
(http://gsnetworks.org/sponsorship/) : Google, MasterCard, HP, SAP, 
Liberty Globa, Royal Bank of  Canada, Rockefeller Foundation, 
accenture, Ontario, Seagate,  Qualcomm, the  US State Department, 
Cisco,  the Canadian Ministry of Industry; in partnership with the UN 
Global Compact (2), the Lisbon Council (3), Digital Opportunity Trust 
(4), C40 Cities (5)

(2) "The UN Global Compact asks companies to embrace universal 
principles and to partner with the United Nations. It has grown to 
become a critical platform for the UN to engage effectively with 
enlightened global business." UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

(3) "The Lisbon Council is a Brussels-based think tank and policy 
network committed to making a positive contribution by engaging 
political leaders and the public at large in a constructive exchange 
about the economic and social challenges of the 21st century"

(4) Digital Opportunity Trust (DOT) is a leading international social 
enterprise headquartered in Ottawa, Canada with local operations 
around the globe.  Its mission is "To create global networks of 
talented, energetic young leaders who make real change by educating 
local communities to apply technology effectively to real life."

(5) C40 Cities : a compact representing 1/12 of the people of the 
world and 18% of the world GNP.

>Miles Fidelman
>
>
>"Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>>On 2014/10/11 18:47, Richard Hill wrote:
>>
>>>Since ICG is an emanation of ICANN, and is acting in accordance with the
>>>mandate given to it by ICANN, I don't see why ICANN's counsel would (or even
>>>could) advise ICANN to do anything other than what is in the final ICG
>>>proposal.
>>
>>Well, sure it might be possible for a lawyer to try to come up with 
>>some minor legality in order to try to avoid (perceivedly) 
>>unpleasant things. But we shouldn't worry about that in advance.
>>
>>
>>>Turning to the substantive matter, the NTIA said that the transition
>>>proposal must "maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the
>>>Internet DNS".
>>>
>>>I think that we all agree that an unfriendly separation between ICANN and
>>>IETF regarding the IANA function would result in some instability, even if
>>>we disagree regarding the duration or severity of that instability.
>>
>>Even if we all agreed that the duration and severity of such an 
>>instability would be very minor, I think there's another aspect to consider:
>>
>>Some other organizations (governments, ITU,...) may want to claim 
>>that after NTIA is gone, stability has decreased. Whatever we can 
>>do to reduce their argumentation surface is probably a good thing.
>>
>>Regards,   Martin.
>>
>>
>>>So it seems to me that the transition plan should resist a stress test, of
>>>the form "what happens in case of unfriendly separation".
>>>
>>>That is, the transition plan should be such that stability is maintained
>>>even in the worst case scenario, provided of course that the resultant plan
>>>is implementable.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ianaplan mailing list
>>[email-masked]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>
>--
>In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ianaplan mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:16:48 +0200

At 09:13 12/10/2014, Martin J. DÃ¼rst wrote:
>that after NTIA is gone, stability has decreased. Whatever we can do 
>to reduce their argumentation surface is probably a good thing.

Martin,

this is exactly what we (as Libre and citizens) feel. This trust 
decrease will also affect the IETF in proportion to the 
firmeness/adequation of the position adopted by this WG.

This is why the "mycann plug-in" definition and development projects 
start receiving some momentum and support. I frankly doubt they can 
be prevented (dont ask me the date as this is new development or 
political decision) because some Govs already have one and we all 
know that any geek can navigate the internet without paying attention to ICANN.

However, their generalization, together with the coexistence with new 
technologies (NDN, SDN, VGN conception) is actually leading to the, 
long "status-quoed", IEN 48 second objective.

This will be something like a "super-NAT" case. If we do not pay 
attention to it, we will not be entitled to complain afterward. The 
IETF should consider the end to end interface aspects of this fringe 
to fringe resulting middleware.

jfc

PS. I know nobody cares. My mails are just to demonstrate it.