Subject: Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:27:55 -0800

Hello,
At 10:08 18-11-2013, IAB Chair wrote:
>I want to make sure the IETF community is aware of the upcoming 
>Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance 
>in Brazil, especially the need for some volunteers from the 
>technical community.  It is clear that the tight timelines for this 
>meeting will require expedient processes. The time constraints are 
>not ideal from a planning perspective, despite that situation, it is 
>better for us to contribute to the /1net initiative (see 
>http://www.1net.org/content/en) to ensure appropriate representation 
>from the technical community.

The Whois information for 1net.org is as follows:

   Registrant Name:The Internet Guild
   Registrant Organization:The Internet Guild
   Registrant Street1:ATTN insert domain name here
   Registrant Street2:care of Network Solutions
   Registrant Street3:
   Registrant City:Drums
   Registrant State/Province:PA
   Registrant Postal Code:18222
   Registrant Country:US
   Registrant Phone:+1.5707088780
   Registrant Phone Ext.:
   Registrant FAX:
   Registrant FAX Ext.:
   Registrant Email:[email-masked]
   Admin ID:15742771-NSIV
   Admin Name:Randall Atkinson
   Admin Organization:The Internet Guild
   Admin Street1:ATTN insert domain name here
   Admin Street2:care of Network Solutions
   Admin Street3:
   Admin City:Drums
   Admin State/Province:PA
   Admin Postal Code:18222
   Admin Country:US
   Admin Phone:+1.5707088780
   Admin Phone Ext.:
   Admin FAX:
   Admin FAX Ext.:
   Admin Email:[email-masked]

The IAB is asking the IETF Community to contribute to the "The 
Internet Guild".  I did a quick search.  I did not find any useful 
information about the Guild.  Does the IAB have any information about 
the Guild and, if so, could it share it with the community?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:46:54 -0500

SM:

>> I want to make sure the IETF community is aware of the upcoming Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Brazil, especially the need for some volunteers from the technical community.  It is clear that the tight timelines for this meeting will require expedient processes. The time constraints are not ideal from a planning perspective, despite that situation, it is better for us to contribute to the /1net initiative (see http://www.1net.org/content/en) to ensure appropriate representation from the technical community.
> 
> The IAB is asking the IETF Community to contribute to the "The Internet Guild".  I did a quick search.  I did not find any useful information about the Guild.  Does the IAB have any information about the Guild and, if so, could it share it with the community?

I do not know anything about the Internet Guild, but I do know that ICANN has taken the lead in getting this web site launched for the global Internet community.

Russ

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:49:52 -0600

Check 1net.org too :-)

-J

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:27 PM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I want to make sure the IETF community is aware of the upcoming Global
>> Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Brazil,
>> especially the need for some volunteers from the technical community.  It
>> is clear that the tight timelines for this meeting will require expedient
>> processes. The time constraints are not ideal from a planning perspective,
>> despite that situation, it is better for us to contribute to the /1net
>> initiative (see http://www.1net.org/content/en) to ensure appropriate
>> representation from the technical community.
>>
>
> The IAB is asking the IETF Community to contribute to the "The Internet
> Guild".  I did a quick search.  I did not find any useful information about
> the Guild.  Does the IAB have any information about the Guild and, if so,
> could it share it with the community?
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Nov 2013 20:36:14 -0000

> I do not know anything about the Internet Guild, but I do know that
> ICANN has taken the lead in getting this web site launched for the
> global Internet community.

I poked around the inet.org web site and I found no contact or
descriptive information whatsoever.  The only hint is Randy Atkinson's
name as one of the otherwise proxied WHOIS contacts.

Particularly given ICANN's long standing desire to transform itself
from a California non-profit into a multi-something entity accountable
to everyone (which in practice would mean to nobody), this does not
fill me with confidence.  If they want us to help, they need to tell
us who they are.

R's,
John

---

From: Lucy Lynch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:32:29 -0800 (PST)

> Check 1net.org too :-)

The links to the mailing list include a privacy policy:

http://discuss.1net.org/emails/privacy

which concludes:

"Users may request access to their personal information held by 1Net.org 
(if any) to verify if it is complete and accurate. 1Net.org will endeavor 
to respond to genuine requests to access, correct or update personal 
information retained by 1Net.org, where appropriate. Requests may be sent 
by email to [email-masked]

1Net.org will retain personal information stored on our servers in 
accordance with our general archival practices and as required or 
permitted by law.

Minors

1Net.org does not knowingly collect or require personal information from 
children under the age of 13.

Questions or Contacting 1Net.org

If you have any questions about this Privacy Statement, please feel free 
to contact 1Net.org at [email-masked]"

note the ICANN address...

- Lucy

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:59:02 -0600

Thanks Lucy, but I was not pointing to the Privacy Statement but the actual
registration data of the 1net.org domain name:

Domain ID:D104161850-LROR
Domain Name:1NET.ORG
Created On:27-Mar-2004 23:51:12 UTC
Last Updated On:17-Nov-2013 14:18:06 UTC
Expiration Date:27-Mar-2014 23:51:12 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, LLC (R91-LROR)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:CR151278610
Registrant Name:Registration Private
Registrant Organization:Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street1:DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant Street2:14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province:Arizona
Registrant Postal Code:85260
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.4806242599
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+1.4806242598
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:[email-masked]
Admin ID:CR151278611
Admin Name:Registration Private
Admin Organization:Domains By Proxy, LLC
Admin Street1:DomainsByProxy.com
Admin Street2:14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Scottsdale
Admin State/Province:Arizona
Admin Postal Code:85260
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.4806242599
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:+1.4806242598
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:[email-masked]
Tech ID:CR151278613
Tech Name:Registration Private
Tech Organization:Domains By Proxy, LLC
Tech Street1:DomainsByProxy.com
Tech Street2:14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Scottsdale
Tech State/Province:Arizona
Tech Postal Code:85260
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.4806242599
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.4806242598
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:[email-masked]
Name Server:PDNS03.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Name Server:PDNS04.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
DNSSEC:Unsigned

Add to that that if you go to http://1net.org/ there is no "about us" or a
clear description about what/who 1net is/are.

-J

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:34:41 -0800

Hi Jorge, Lucy,
>Check 1net.org too :-)

I did. :-)  I visited the web site some time back.  There is a news 
article at 
http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35419&sid=4

At 13:32 18-11-2013, Lucy Lynch wrote:
>If you have any questions about this Privacy Statement, please feel 
>free to contact 1Net.org at [email-masked]"
>

Thanks.  The web site looked suspicious.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 22:37:27 +0000

"You attempted to reach www.1net.org, but instead you actually reached a
server identifying itself as *.sanssl-001.bsdtools.com."

So, erm. No (working) https. Nice - can't even check the cert.

Is this really something by ICANN, or did they accidentally copy a privacy
policy from them without changing the email addresses?

This *looks* like a wannabe bandwagon site at best.

Seriously, is this legit?

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:49:15 -0600

They mentioned the existence of the site during one of the meetings during
ICANN48, can't remember if it was the general GNSO session pre-ICANN48 or
what, but it was part of the discussion related to the proposed meeting
about Internet Governance in Brazil next year and ICANN's CEO involvement
in conversations with the president of Brazil after the meeting of the I*'s
in Montevideo.

Now ICANN's BoD is saying that they voted on a resolution to give the CEO
green light but given some particular issues (excuses) they decided to keep
it "quiet" (S.Crocket dixit) meaning confidential, but instead of posting
the original resolution and transcript of the meeting there is now a new
resolution (
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-17nov13-en.htm#1)
which for me smells to damage control after the fact.

-J

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 22:55:40 +0000

> which for me smells to damage control after the fact.
Ah, I see. Clearly explained just inside the disused toilet with the sign
saying "beware of the leopard". :-)

Dave.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:40:48 -0800

Hi Dave,
At 14:37 18-11-2013, Dave Cridland wrote:
>"You attempted to reach <http://www.1net.org>www.1net.org, but 
>instead you actually reached a server identifying itself as 
>*.<http://sanssl-001.bsdtools.com>sanssl-001.bsdtools.com."
>
>Is this really something by ICANN, or did they accidentally copy a 
>privacy policy from them without changing the email addresses?
>

The message from Russ mentioned that "ICANN has taken the lead in 
getting this web site launched for the global Internet community".  I 
would not vouch for the web site.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:15:40 -0300

The web site is under construction and in a state flux, which probably explains some of the weirdness. For instance, both me and Russ have signed up on the mailing list but not received mails yet. There's no IPv6. Bug reports have been filed...

Jari

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:19:09 -0500

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The web site is under construction and in a state flux, which probably
> explains some of the weirdness. For instance, both me and Russ have signed
> up on the mailing list but not received mails yet. There's no IPv6. Bug
> reports have been filed...
>
> Jari
>
>
I have been trying this all day!

Where is my damn healthcare insurance?

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:27:39 -0800

> The web site is under construction and in a state flux, which probably explains some of the weirdness. For instance, both me and Russ have signed up on the mailing list but not received mails yet.…

 From a quick scan of the postings on this thread, the effort you folks 
are describing sounds either like a scam or a serious lack of 
operational competence.

In either case, it seems like it should prompt considerable caution 
rather than considerable haste.

It's not as if it is difficult to set up a basic web site these days...

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:52:02 -0500

On Monday, November 18, 2013 16:27:39 Dave Crocker wrote:
> > explains some of the weirdness. For instance, both me and Russ have
> > signed up on the mailing list but not received mails yet. There's no
> > IPv6. Bug reports have been filed...

I'm not personally in a rush to sign up for anything with a privacy policy 
that includes things like it being permissible to release private information 
when it is determined to be in the publics interest.  As I read it, the 
privacy policy boils down to them being able to release anything to anybody 
that is not specifically prohibited by law.

Scott K

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:16:18 -0500

Dear colleagues,

> rather than considerable haste.

Perhaps it should prompt considered effort to impart some clue to
those who are trying to do this.  I'm not excited about how 1net.org
has been initiated, but it is an opportunity for us to participate
constructively and to carry once again to the would-be
governors-of-Internet our not inconsiderable knowledge of the
technical facts.  These set certain boundaries on what is technically
possible to govern on the Internet, and we have a chance here to make
that clear.

I have managed to join at least one mailing list associated with this
effort.  I've already sent one rather pointed message about the
outstanding issues to that mailing list.  I'm prepared to relay
messages from others, so if you feel too uncomfortable to do it
yourself because of reservations about the legitimacy of the effort
you may (for the time being!) ask me to send on remarks (with relevant
personally-identifying information redacted if you think that is
important).

I am reminded of Lyndon Johnson's remark about J. Edgar Hoover and the
tent.  I think this is a case where we might want to worry about our
location relative to the inside of the tent.
 
> It's not as if it is difficult to set up a basic web site these days...

I suspect that depends on who you are, and what you mean by "basic web
site".  DNSSEC, IPv6, good certificate handling, and clear whois data
are all somewhat mysterious to many people these days.  To the extent
that is true, it says something about the technical environment we
(all of us) have built.  This issue was a subtext of some of the
plenary discussion in Vancouver, so let's take this opportunity to
show we know how to help for real.

Best regards,

A
(as ever, speaking only for myself)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:36:19 -0800

On 11/18/2013 5:16 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> are all somewhat mysterious to many people these days.

Sorry, but an organization that opens with, "/1net is hosting a free and 
open online forum about the future of Internet governance" ought to know 
the basics.  DNSSEC and IPv6 probably aren't within that very 
constrained set of skills.  Certificate handling might or might not be. 
  Clear Whois data most definitely is.

But more significant than these basic technical points is the question 
of credibility any effort this lofty risks by showing such a basic lack 
of vetting skills:

      By the time this went public, there should have been a clear set 
of supporting statements from very well-known folk who have pointers to 
the site.  It's the non-technical form of a certificate 'bush' and it's 
what the real world relies on, ultimately.

      And it's not as if there isn't already a lengthy history of flakey 
efforts in Internet governance, to provide exemplars of how not to do 
things...

d/

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:41:56 +0900

i am interested in learning about the substance of the effort, not the
foibles of system administrators.  take that to nanog.  of course, none
of us had made any sillies in sysadmin, at least i haven't.

randy, on board luftschweinza

---

From: Jaap Akkerhuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 03:05:41 +0100

> ... For instance, both me and Russ have signed up on the
    mailing list but not received mails yet. There's no IPv6. Bug
    reports have been filed.  ..

I got a welcome mail.
    
	jaap

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:17:31 -0500

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 05:36:19PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Sorry, but an organization that opens with, "/1net is hosting a free
> and open online forum about the future of Internet governance" ought
> to know the basics.  DNSSEC and IPv6 probably aren't within that
> very constrained set of skills.  Certificate handling might or might
> not be.  Clear Whois data most definitely is.

Supposing I grant that, though, the question is not what we can laugh
at harder, but what we can do about it.  That was my challenge, Dave.
I'm not sure how I could have stated it more clearly.  

But perhaps I can: do you want to stand outside adding yet more, ahem,
liquid, or do you want to go inside the tent on the principle that you
can then be one of the people pointing out where the tent-poles ought
to be?

Also,

> set of supporting statements from very well-known folk who have

why?  Why should this be an effort of the great and glorious?  I'm
tired of the great and glorious and the halls of fame and the
we-were-there-when crowd.  Why shouldn't this be an effort of those
today interested in doing what we can do now?  There's a mailing list.
Why shouldn't we work there, at least for now, as collaboratively as
possible? 

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:52:43 -0600

The website and this effort at this time has as much substance as denoted
on the archive of the email list
http://community.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/

I subscribed to the list and sent a message and yet waiting for a response,
seems that not even the ones who created it are subscribed.

It doesn't matter if this is just starting and is in state of flux, unless
we are looking at something that is not the "official" site given that this
particular domain has been registered in 2004 when IG was not even in the
important topics list, the way it looks and works as it is shows a total
lack of competence and it has been several months since the Montevideo i*
fest.

It does not look serious, it does not look legit, it does not speak well
about whoever has the fat fingers on it. If ICANN is behind this, it is
preposterous that after collecting hundreds of millions of dollars they
came out with that site.

I'm looking forward for a reply to my message Andrew, on that list :-)

Cheers
Jorge

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 22:09:08 -0500

> http://community.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/

That might well be because following the instructions did not reveal the
email address to direct messages to.

Instead I got pulled into a site called snapchat that seemed to be some
half baked social networking web site.

> preposterous that after collecting hundreds of millions of dollars they

It looks to me to be the sort of thing that someone comes up with when they
are trying too hard.

Like all those people who build flash Web sites that impress their CEO but
utterly fail to meet customer needs because they are an advert for the
design firm that created the site and nothing more.

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:16:08 -0600

>From the list page:
*Using Discuss* To post a message to all the list members, send email to
[email-masked].

You can subscribe to the list, or change your existing subscription, in the
sections below.

>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:54:04 -0600
>Subject: Is this list alive ?
>From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>
>Who runs this list and website and what is the purpose of the list ?
>
>Thanks & Regards
>Jorge

-J

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>wrote:

> It looks to me to be the sort of thing that someone comes up with when
> they are trying too hard.
>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 23:12:11 -0500

I got onto the list but I am still a little concerned. Is the list really
sponsored by the organizers of the conference? Will there be government
participation?

I remember a maneuver I saw someone pull once where they asserted that
organization X had requested all communication go through them as a single
point of contact. Which turned out to be completely false but we believed
it at the time.

At the moment we are being presented with a 'choice' between two models of
Internet governance. There is the current status quo of a managed anarchy
with the US having ultimate management control and there is the alternative
of each sovereign nation carving out control within their own narrow
geographic boundaries. I disagree with that framing, there are other
alternatives.

Nor do I see a need to maintain any of the existing institutions unless
they continue to serve our needs. ICANN keeps making these bids to be free
of US government control which I can understand. What I do not understand
is what parties they propose to be accountable to instead. Or rather I
suspect I understand it too well and it is the empty set.

Rather than debate how ICANN or some other body should exercise regulatory
powers I would rather we consider how to dissolve and diffuse those powers
so that there isn't a single point of control to fight over. But this would
require the process be responsive to the interests of sovereign governments
in protecting their sovereignty while currently they are shut out.

Hence my concern about what the actual role of this mailing list is. I
don't want my messages to be carried to the government parties through
intermediaries and particularly not when my proposals are made without any
concern for protecting anyone's livelihood.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:18:28 -0800

On 11/18/2013 5:41 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> i am interested in learning about the substance of the effort, not
> the foibles of system administrators.  take that to nanog.

If the nanog skillset were even slightly relevant to the point of this
thread that might have been a reasonable suggestion.

Since that point seems to have been missed:  The concern being expressed
was about the nature and credibility of the effort, with poor online
startup presence being taken as a negative indicator.

> On 11/18/2013 6:17 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> But perhaps I can: do you want to stand outside adding yet more,
>> ahem, liquid, or do you want to go inside the tent on the
>> principle that you can then be one of the people pointing out where
>> the tent-poles ought to be?
>>
>> Also,
>>

Again, this thread was dominated by questions about who the heck these
folk were and why their connections into the established (presumably
credible) world seemed so difficult to confirm.

Perhaps you've heard of web-of-trust?  That's what was/is lacking.

As for tents and camels...

A guy comes up to you and asks for spare change.  You have some, so you
give it to him.  A bit later, another guy does the same thing.  And so
do you.  This keeps happening, but somewhere along the way, you realize
that you don't have infinite spare change and that you need to make
some resource allocation choices.

There are many tents, many camels, and a great deal of liquid flowing in
all directions.  The mere announcement of yet-another tent does not
create a compelling incentive for being inside it, no matter how pretty 
its interior decorating.

d/

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 22:57:45 -0800

Hi Dave,
At 20:18 18-11-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>create a compelling incentive for being inside it, no matter how 
>pretty its interior decorating.

According to the IAB announcement:

   "Purpose. The meeting will aim to produce universal Internet principles
    and an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance.
    The framework will include a roadmap to evolve and globalize current
    institutions, and new mechanisms to address the emerging internet
    governance topics.  The conference will not include any discussion or
    activity to create solutions for specific topics such as security,
    privacy, surveillance, etc."

I don't know whether you have been following the progress of the 
"Marco Civil da Internet".  It is an Internet Bill of Rights which 
got pushed forward again after the Powerpoint affair was raised at 
the United Nations [1].

Regards,
-sm

1. http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/68/BR_en.pdf

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 07:33:20 -0600

It vorks Sigfrid it vorks !!

Actually I don't know because it was a private response and not to the list
and didn't answer my questions :-(

>From: David Closson <[email-masked]>
>To: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:20:16 -0800
>Subject: Re: [/1net discuss] Is this list alive ?
>
>Yes, it is alive.
>
>--
>David Closson
>Director of IT Operations, ICANN
>12025 Waterfront Dr. Suite 300
>Los Angeles, CA 90094
>Office: 310-578-8670
>Cell: 213-270-3866

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]> wrote:

> You can subscribe to the list, or change your existing subscription, in
> the sections below.
>
>
>>> The website and this effort at this time has as much substance as
>>> denoted on the archive of the email list
>> Like all those people who build flash Web sites that impress their CEO
>> but utterly fail to meet customer needs because they are an advert for the

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:01:58 -0600

OK there is another list where some of the coordination was taking place
and the "Steering Committee" was being formed.

They knew in advance that for a site talking about the future of the
Internet not being accessible via IPv6 was not kosher. There is some extra
juice on the email archives like some people don't feel comfortable about
broad and public participation on the list.

https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/2013-November/000088.html

Perhaps we are seeing the gestation of ICANN 2.0 ?

-J

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:04:04 -0600

Looks like this message reflects some of the discussions we have been
having here

https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/2013-November/000109.html

Hi Andrew :-)

-J

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:12:53 -0500

The i-coodrination mail list is the one that you will join if you click the right buttons on the www.1net.org site.

Russ

On Nov 19, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:

> 
> Looks like this message reflects some of the discussions we have been having here 
>

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:21:49 -0600

Which button ?

The only one I see on the home page says "Join the conversation now" which
takes you to a page where you are asked for your email address which then
sends you a subscription confirmation to [email-masked], to
which I sent a message and got a private reply and its archives show
nothing.

The only way I found to join the other list (which has not been made widely
public) was going to the https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination

Also you can enter your name and email address on the left to "Stay
Informed" for which I believe I received a welcome message a day later.

You can also follow the very active tweeter feed of
https://twitter.com/1netorg

With all due respect, so far the only thing I can think about all this at
this stage is WTF ?

-J

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The i-coodrination mail list is the one that you will join if you click
> the right buttons on the www.1net.org site.
>
> Russ
>
>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:22:51 -0500

The actual subscription URL is:

https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination

I could not find a path to connect to that list from the home page.

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:24:45 -0600

Perhaps we can blame the NSA and Obamacare ...

-J

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Russ Housley <[email-masked]>wrote:
>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:30:10 -0500

The button has disappeared since I clicked on it....

Obviously, the /1net site is still under construction.

Russ

On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:

> 
> Which button ? 
> 
> The only one I see on the home page says "Join the conversation now" which takes you to a page where you are asked for your email address which then sends you a subscription confirmation to [email-masked], to which I sent a message and got a private reply and its archives show nothing.
> 
> The only way I found to join the other list (which has not been made widely public) was going to the https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
> 
> Also you can enter your name and email address on the left to "Stay Informed" for which I believe I received a welcome message a day later.
> 
> You can also follow the very active tweeter feed of https://twitter.com/1netorg
> 
> With all due respect, so far the only thing I can think about all this at this stage is WTF ?
> 
> -J
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:50:18 -0500

If you want to join the mail list, you can do so here: https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:09:27 -0800

On 11/18/2013 10:57 PM, SM wrote:
> I don't know whether you have been following the progress of the "Marco
> Civil da Internet".

SM,

Again, please focus on the questions and concerns that created this 
thread.  There have been many conversation, announcements, documents, 
meetings, etc. about Internet governance.  Most have been motivated by 
well-meaning people seeking good outcomes.

So, how is that reference relevant to the current thread, and how is a 
person supposed to be able to know that it is relevant?

d/

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 12:08:22 +0000

Andrew,

I absolutely agree with you. I think this is overall a very positive
development. Let me share what I think is the direction of this 1net
initiative and the conference in Brazil.

The idea of the 1net is to provide a platform for a dialog between the
different players in the Internet Governance arena. The principle used for
this is going to be based on the "multi-stakeholder" principle, which
means that different people from different groups can join and discuss as
equals. These different groups include people from the technical community
(us, for instance), business, civil society and even governments. The aim
of the dialog is to look at, for instance, Internet Governance topics that
have no real home. The idea is that we can discuss these topics that has
worked well in the Internet - in an open dialog between all the interested
people. Exactly as we do this in the IETF.

I also agree the 1net.org is not the most beautiful web page and, even
worse, does not even support IPv6. I have pushed this point forward
already and I hope this gets addressed quickly.

Anyways, I would underline that this is a positive effort trying to
address Internet issues in the same way that we have found out in the IETF
to work well - open discussion and dialog. I think people should put their
skepticism aside for now, subscribe and then contribute actively into
shaping this initiative as the dialog starts.

I hope this helps.

Cheers,

Jonne.

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:54:33 -0600

>
>
> ... Exactly as we do this in the IETF.
>

With all due respect not even close.

-J

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:13:01 -0800

Hi Dave,
At 08:09 19-11-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>thread.  There have been many conversation, announcements, 
>documents, meetings, etc. about Internet governance.  Most have been 
>motivated by well-meaning people seeking good outcomes.

The concern discussed on the thread was that, if I can use some words 
from one of your messages, the web site raises the "question of 
credibility any effort this lofty risks by showing such a basic lack 
of vetting skills".  As mentioned above, there has been many 
announcements, meetings, etc. about Internet governance and most of 
them were motivated by well-meaning people.  I am not aware of any 
positive outcome out of any of the efforts.

>So, how is that reference relevant to the current thread, and how is 
>a person supposed to be able to know that it is relevant?

It would be difficult for a person to determine whether the reference 
is relevant or not.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 08:08:58 +1300

On 20/11/2013 06:13, SM wrote:
...
>   As mentioned above, there has been many announcements,
> meetings, etc. about Internet governance and most of them were motivated
> by well-meaning people.  I am not aware of any positive outcome out of
> any of the efforts.

I'm not sure, given the origins and history of WSIS/WSIG (including the
WSIS session in Tunisia supported by the previous Tunisian regime), about
"most" being well-meaning. But never mind. I think there has actually been
one positive outcome of all the IGF blah-blah: a continued absence of
international treaties and regulations interfering with Internet technology
and deployment. Interference has occurred only on a national basis. What
we need is for this international non-interference to continue, even
post-Snowdenia.

Multi-stakeholder meetings, if they serve to prolong the non-interference,
may be a price we have to pay. It's particularly important to underline
that the response to pervasive surveillance should be better security
and privacy technology, not regulation or national solutions.

    Brian

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 20:16:17 +0100

Very well said, Brian.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:17:56 -0300

I'd echo what Jonne and Andrew said, and also wanted to add a few things. And yes, the web site situation is as silly as it can be. It will get sorted out or somebody else has to step in and do it. But lets not volunteer to do that unless it is really necessary. We have other work to do.

Anyway, the point that I made at the igovupdate BOF and keep making is that for various reasons (upcoming meetings, surveillance revelations, ever growing importance of the Internet) there is far more highlight on Internet governance topics than we've seen before. And the probability of changes is higher, be it for good or bad. Obviously we at the IETF are primarily focused on our task - the technology. But at the same time, some of us may also want to pay attention to these discussions, because they can affect us and affect the Internet and its value to all of us. And I think many others around the Internet ecosystem feel similarly.

Hence, the desire to create a place where we could discuss these things together. I think the intent of 1net is to be such a place. But at this point, even if the web site and mailing list gets sorted out, it will still be very bare - just a discussion place. There's very little structure, process, vision, proposals. And that is in part a good thing - I don't think we would take it positively, if somebody specified to all of us which direction Internet governance should take now :-) 

However, while the site is coming up, it would be useful to think about the kinds of things that could be usefully discussed. There are obviously many specific issues which belong to already existing organisations. Such as protocol parameter registry topic being an IETF/IAB matter, TLD assignments an ICANN matter, etc. There's little reason to create new places to discuss such topics. On the other hand, it would probably be good to have a place to discuss the overall situation, relate work in different organisations to each other, build more co-operation, etc. What are your thoughts on this? What topics do you think need additional attention?

I'd also like to make a plug for something that Lynn and Leslie wrote - a framework of issues in Internet governance: http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Internet%20Society%20Collaborative%20Stewardship%20Framework.pdf

Jari

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 14:31:18 -0500

> and privacy technology, not regulation or national solutions.

Well apart from the SCO treaty between Russia, China and the rest.

The problem with the current situation is that it is not stable. The
governments have a necessary interest in protecting access to the net. If
that need is not met they are going to find a way to smash the whole
governance system up to get what they need. And once it is smashed they are
going to take what they want as well.

There are two problems in the current standards process, both to do with
lack of stakeholder recognition. There is by design no recognition of any
government interest other than the US government interest as seen by the
departments of Commerce and "Defense". I don't think that denying
governments the ability to protect their legitimate and necessary interest
of protecting their access to the Internet serves the interest of
preventing those governments from pursing an illegitimate interest in
political censorship.

And no, given the recent attempts of the Italian government to block access
to opposition news and the idiotic antics of Cameron et. al., I don't think
censorship is a problem limited to tinpot dictatorships.

There is no recognition of necessary stakeholder interests either. Which is
the principal reason for the failure of IPv6 deployment thus far: there is
no representation of the ISP stakeholders whose participation is required
for deployment.

Note here that 'representation' is distinct from 'the option to participate
as individuals but not speaking for anyone but themselves'.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:54:10 -0800

Hi Brian,
>we need is for this international non-interference to continue, even

I agree that it is better not to have regulations interfering with 
technology and deployment.

>may be a price we have to pay. It's particularly important to underline

Yes.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 08:46:28 +0900

yup.  thanks for that.

for us geeks in the bleachers, could someone compare/contrast 1net with
igf?

randy

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:59:28 -0800

Brian,

> and privacy technology, not regulation or national solutions.

I agree.  It seems to me that since governments are the ones doing pervasive surveillance, it is unlikely that government based solutions are likely to fix the problem, more likely the opposite.

Bob

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:24:46 -0600

It is very confusing and I'm still trying to understand why this "dialog" can't take place under the umbrella of organizations like ISOC. Feels like and effort from ICANN + others to reinvent themselves.

-Jorge

> On Nov 19, 2013, at 5:46 PM, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> yup.  thanks for that.
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 00:27:50 -0300

> for us geeks in the bleachers, could someone compare/contrast 1net with

IMO, I think that is one of the big open questions. Although I'd phrase it slightly differently: what more do we have to do than what we have at IGF, ICANN, IETF, RIR, and so on?

Jari

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 21:31:41 -0600

What about the commercial sector ?

-J

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:

> IMO, I think that is one of the big open questions. Although I'd phrase it
> slightly differently: what more do we have to do than what we have at IGF,
> ICANN, IETF, RIR, and so on?
>
> Jari
>
>

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 00:44:51 -0800

Hi Jorge,
At 17:24 19-11-2013, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>It is very confusing and I'm still trying to understand why this 
>"dialog" can't take place under the umbrella of organizations like 
>ISOC. Feels like and effort from ICANN + others to reinvent themselves.

The IAB announcement message mentioned "technical, academic, civil 
society, and business communities".  There are different groups 
and/or people in those communities who would like to have a say in 
dialogs about the net.  The umbrella could be the ITU or ISOC.  IETF 
participants might not take it very well if the umbrella is the 
ITU.  It's unlikely that groups/people within civil society would 
agree if the umbrella is called ISOC.  The alternative is to have 
some body invent some umbrella [1] for the dialog.  The umbrella up 
to now has been the IGF.  ICANN recommended a "coalition of the 
willing" for that dialog.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 05:13:16 -0600

Thanks SM, very clear about ITU.

I really had a different perception about ISOC that's why I was asking,
didn't know that Civil Society does not feel comfortable with ISOC.

I've finally got somebody at the ICANN meeting to provide a straight
response about what 1net is, according to Adiel Akplogan it is a
movement.not just an email list.

Regards
Jorge

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:44 AM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> It is very confusing and I'm still trying to understand why this "dialog"
>> can't take place under the umbrella of organizations like ISOC. Feels like
>> and effort from ICANN + others to reinvent themselves.
>>
>
> society, and business communities".  There are different groups and/or
> people in those communities who would like to have a say in dialogs about
> the net.  The umbrella could be the ITU or ISOC.  IETF participants might
> not take it very well if the umbrella is the ITU.  It's unlikely that
> groups/people within civil society would agree if the umbrella is called
> ISOC.  The alternative is to have some body invent some umbrella [1] for
> the dialog.  The umbrella up to now has been the IGF.  ICANN recommended a
> "coalition of the willing" for that dialog.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:53:51 -0300

On Nov 20, 2013, at 8:13 AM, Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I've finally got somebody at the ICANN meeting to provide a straight response about what 1net is, according to Adiel Akplogan it is a movement.not just an email list.

Probably best to say an "open mailing list with aspirations of being a movement"
(a movement for folks who want to advance the objectives in the Montevideo Statement 
<http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation>)
If you want to join the mailing list, it's here: https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination

There's a a bit excitement that has resulted from the appearance of the Brazil Meeting on
scene, as it is a one-time event with the potential to address many of same topics.  Brazil, 
with awareness of the Montevideo Statement and "1net" initiative to advance same, asked
for the very new  "1net" initiative to assist in planning with this meeting.   There are folks
from civil society, academia, and business sectors working to put folks a "1net" steering
committee as fast as possible, and there is a need for similar representation from the 
Technical community.  If you want to help the 1net initiative along and additional be 
involved in a planning a conference on very challenging timelines, then consider both
joining the mailing list and also volunteering on the list for being on the initial 1net steering 
committee. 

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone, although I am a Montevideo Statement signatory personally
                    and on behalf of ARIN.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Nov 2013 15:50:43 -0000

>movement.not just an email list.

For some reason, the word "astroturf" comes to mind.

R's,
John

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:48:27 -0800

Hi John,
At 05:53 20-11-2013, John Curran wrote:
>for the very new  "1net" initiative to assist in planning with this 
>meeting.   There are folks from civil society, academia, and 
>business sectors working to put folks a "1net" steering committee as 
>fast as possible, and there is a need for similar representation 
>from the Technical community.  If you want to help the 1net 
>initiative along and additional be involved in a planning a 
>conference on very challenging timelines, then consider both joining 
>the mailing list and also volunteering on the list for being on the 
>initial 1net steering committee.

The above mentions that "there is a need for similar representation" 
without providing enough details.  It might be easier if the 
person(s) who identified that need could explain what qualities are 
required to be considered as being from the "Technical community".

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:11:39 +1300

> didn't know that Civil Society does not feel comfortable with ISOC.

That statement makes my head hurt. Any time I attended meetings at the ITU
under the ISOC banner, I had to sit in the cheap seats at the back labelled
"Civil Society".

I remind you that ISOC has both organisational and individual members,
and many local chapters. Sure sounds like Civil Society to me. There may
be special interest groups, also part of Civil Society, who have different
views to ISOC, of course.

    Brian (individual member of ISOC since 1992)

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:35:09 -0600

Same here, I participated in Inet'91 in Denmark when conversations about ISOC were taking place, joined as individual member in 1992, and was the founder of the Argentinean ISOC-AR Chapter in 1995. 

My head hurts as well since I agree with you that ISOC since the beginning has been inclusive of all sectors and I truly didn't know that some Civil Society groups have a different view and opinion. Do you think this view from certain groups is widespread or it is just a minority ?

-Jorge

> On Nov 20, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:52:18 -0300

On Nov 20, 2013, at 2:48 PM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> for the very new  "1net" initiative to assist in planning with this meeting.   There are folks from civil society, academia, and business sectors working to put folks a "1net" steering committee as fast as possible, and there is a need for similar representation from the Technical community.  If you want to help the 1net initiative along and additional be involved in a planning a conference on very challenging timelines, then consider both joining the mailing list and also volunteering on the list for being on the initial 1net steering committee.
> 
> The above mentions that "there is a need for similar representation" without providing enough details.  It might be easier if the person(s) who identified that need could explain what qualities are required to be considered as being from the "Technical community".

Adiel indicated that 5 representatives from each of the 4 sectors are sought to 
sit on the steering committee.  In the case of Civil Society and Business Community, 
they seem quite accustomed to these kinds of requests (e.g. various coalitions and 
international organizations apparently ask for representatives in this manner...)

/John

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:52:56 -0800

Hi John,
>international organizations apparently ask for representatives in 

I don't see any information in the above related to the "Technical 
community" which was mentioned in the message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84403.html

Regards,
-sm

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:36:32 -0300

On Nov 20, 2013, at 5:52 PM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I don't see any information in the above related to the "Technical community" which was mentioned in the message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84403.html

SM - 
It's not there; the info above is from the actual mailing list - archives 
are online here: <https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/>

Russ Housley is the one who invited IETF participation (see attached message 
on the ietf list from 18 November 2013) - his email is [email-masked]

Thanks!
/John

===

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance
> Date: November 18, 2013 at 4:46:54 PM GMT-3
> To: SM <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> 
> SM:
>

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:48:31 -0300

> already and I hope this gets addressed quickly.

I'm told that DNS domain registration is fixed, a more straightforward web page 
directing to the mailing list manager has been put up, and there might even be 
DNSSEC (still No IPv6 from what I can tell, but it still some progress. :-)

FYI,
/John

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:06:32 -0300

> DNSSEC (still No IPv6 from what I can tell, but it still some progress. :-)

Apparently it has IPv6 as well (when I actually have IPv6 connectivity... :-)

I've attached a note from Adiel regarding the changes (if you tried to get on 
the mailing list before but did not receive his message, please subscribe now)

FYI,
/John

=== Begin forwarded message:

> From: Adiel Akplogan <[email-masked]>
> Subject: [I-coordination] /1net.org and subscription to the mailing list
> Date: November 21, 2013 at 12:13:22 PM GMT-3
> To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> As mentioned yesterday, http://1net.org has now been simplified to a single page with a direct link to subscribe just to this mailing list. The web site will be reworked with all the needed features including a clear process for publishing/uploading relevant information/contribution (your input will obviously be requested). 
> 
> Please share this  information with people who want to join the discussion. We have noticed that there has been a lot of typographic error during the transcription of e-mail addresses collected during the various meeting held in Bali, which has resulted to many bounced and deactivation. If you know people who are complaining for not receiving e-mail  of the mailing list, please direct them to the 1net.org page. 
> 
> There is currently more than 250 people on the list and everything is being done to consolidated all in one place so to ensure a smooth transition in few days to the final platform.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> - a.
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> [email-masked]

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:10:00 -0600

It has IPv6 and it is now signed, just one minor detail there is no landing
page on the IPv6 site, IPv4 shows a very simple page.

-J