Subject: [Internetgovtech] Time to be more precise about Internet Governance

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 14:20:10 +1300

Hi,

I've been swimming in the entropy pool on the 1net list recently, and
decided to write up my thoughts, which may be of interest:

https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/CrossBorderInfoGovernance.pdf

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: McTim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 08:44:20 -0500

Thanks Brian,

Very useful indeed!

rgds,

McTim

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Internetgovtech mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 01:45:52 +0100

>https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/CrossBorderInfoGovernance.pdf

As I explained on the 1net list, I can only agree with you within the 
very limited "1978/2013 ARPA/IETF internet" framework.

The target of the Sao Paulo meeting is to enlarge that framework 
through "practical solutions because the world's confidence in the 
global Internet is injured" and therefore renew the "grounds for our 
work in governing the internet" ("our" no being clear defined).

The US/OECD WCIT position and the incomplete OpenStand decision 
process (*) lead to consider possible political and technical 
conflicts. They may result in forks in the technical internet 
governance functions, no one having a technical monopoly on the 
internet. ICANN ICP-3 forecasts that a unique root will not last for 
ever. IETF is challenged over its security oriented architectural choices.

Sao Paulo is to discuss a multilateral "ICANN and IANA globalization" 
whatever it may mean. I understand that this list is where the 
IETF/IAB want to prepare themselves in order to address new/critical 
situations, most probably through propositions of consensual/MS 
technical IG options/compromises.

It seems that a quarter is a short period of time to consider the 
different risks and prepare the corresponding guide-lines to the 
IETF/IAB representatives/leaders.

Seasons greetings.
jfc

(*) under the circumstances I think preferable to delay my ISOC 
appeal, not to prematuraly put ISOC at disavantage in showing there 
is no OpenStand normative process (hence a discontinuity with the 
internet technical community), before the premises of a new normative 
concordance have emerged.