Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 18:57:10 +0200

Abdussalam,

I am sorry, I missed the most important document: the testimony of 
Lawrence Strickling, for the NTIA two days ago.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/testimony-assistant-secretary-strickling-hearing-ensuring-security-stability-re

His actual seven points are important to keep in memory:
1. the transition proposal must have broad community support
2. the transition proposal must support and enhance the 
multistakeholder model.
3. the transition proposal must maintain the security, stability, and 
resiliency of the Internet DNS
4. the transition proposal must meet the needs and expectations of 
the global customers and partners of the IANA services.
5. the transition proposal must maintain the openness of the Internet 
and maintain the global interoperability through neutral and judgment 
free administration.
6. a proposal that wouls replaces the NTIA role with a government-led 
or an inter-governmental organization solution is not acceptable.
7. there are up to four years for stakeholders to work through the 
ICANN-convened process to develop an acceptable transition proposal.

What he says is important as, in particular what he says regarding 
the DNS: "the decentralized distributed authority structure of the 
DNS needs to be preserved so as to avoid single points of failure, 
manipulation or capture", and further on "Any transition of the NTIA 
role must maintain this neutral and judgment free administration, 
thereby maintaining the global interoperability of the Internet", 
something rather different from ICANN but conformant to ICANN/ICP-3.

Also when he states: "Some authoritarian regimes however do not 
accept this model and seek to move Internet governance issues, 
including the DNS, into the United Nations system in order to exert 
influence and control over the Internet.  This played out during the 
2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai 
where the world split on fundamental issues of Internet 
governance.  This issue will likely resurface at the October 2014 
International Telecommunication Union Plenipotentiary Conference, 
where we expect some countries to once again attempt to insert 
themselves in the middle of decisions impacting the Internet."

The idea that the countries who signed so far the ITR are 
"authoritarian" countries 
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-signed-itu-wcit-treaty-who-didnt.shtml 
is technically preoccupying, because the "world split on fundamental 
issues of [the] internet" (the governance affects everything) will 
necessarily have an impact on the architecture. In the "IANA 
considerations" should we add a "World split" sub-section in the 
cases where the split might affect the end to end operations or 
stability? This point was not considered for the "Security 
considerations" after the promulgation of the Patriot Act: Snowdenia 
shown that it could have been judicious.

The internet is deployed in a real world.
jfc

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 07:57:58 +0100

Hi Jefsey,

I think the proposal has things missing. It will become more important if
they mention what community it is talking about. Is it world community? If
so then why the proposal does not include the participation of IAB and
IETF. These two entities are very important which I participate in. I never
was interested to participate in ICANN until got input from IAB chair and
from IETF chair. Furthermore received input from ISOC president.

ISOC, IAB and IETF are the real bodies that community use to participate in
the real internet development. The community access and proposals are
usually through their usual discussion lists not icann or NTIA. Why such
proposals ignore that? However the draft of IAB is important for NTIA to
understand.

I hope people from NTIA participate in this list and in other community
lists like ISOC (not only through their web page, because their web is
mostly for their citizens not the world) to explain more closer its
real points and to enhance multistakeholder discussions.

Thanks for your help.

Regards
AB

On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Jefsey wrote:

> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/
> testimony-assistant-secretary-strickling-hearing-ensuring-
> security-stability-re
>
> 2. the transition proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder
> model.
> 4. the transition proposal must meet the needs and expectations of the
> global customers and partners of the IANA services.
> 5. the transition proposal must maintain the openness of the Internet and
> maintain the global interoperability through neutral and judgment free
> administration.
> 6. a proposal that wouls replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or
> an inter-governmental organization solution is not acceptable.
> What he says is important as, in particular what he says regarding the
> DNS: "the decentralized distributed authority structure of the DNS needs to
> be preserved so as to avoid single points of failure, manipulation or
> capture", and further on "Any transition of the NTIA role must maintain
> this neutral and judgment free administration, thereby maintaining the
> global interoperability of the Internet", something rather different from
> ICANN but conformant to ICANN/ICP-3.
>
> Also when he states: "Some authoritarian regimes however do not accept
> this model and seek to move Internet governance issues, including the DNS,
> into the United Nations system in order to exert influence and control over
> the Internet.  This played out during the 2012 World Conference on
> International Telecommunications in Dubai where the world split on
> fundamental issues of Internet governance.  This issue will likely
> resurface at the October 2014 International Telecommunication Union
> Plenipotentiary Conference, where we expect some countries to once again
> attempt to insert themselves in the middle of decisions impacting the
> Internet."
>
> The idea that the countries who signed so far the ITR are "authoritarian"
> countries https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/
> who-signed-itu-wcit-treaty-who-didnt.shtml is technically preoccupying,
> because the "world split on fundamental issues of [the] internet" (the
> governance affects everything) will necessarily have an impact on the
> architecture. In the "IANA considerations" should we add a "World split"
> sub-section in the cases where the split might affect the end to end
> operations or stability? This point was not considered for the "Security
> considerations" after the promulgation of the Patriot Act: Snowdenia shown
> that it could have been judicious.
>