From nobody Thu Apr 3 07:08:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021BD1A01FC for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 07:08:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.632 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IqXm_STfBSfA for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 07:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782301A01C3 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 07:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.159.233.116] (port=49053 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WViJN-0003sm-Ax; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 07:08:10 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 16:07:56 +0200 To: Abdussalam Baryun From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: References: <427FB5CE-1782-4652-B51C-1BE059509820@NLnetLabs.nl> <533c5050.036e0e0a.52c7.6445SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_935441150==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/Ww2qMYtZ_JzysE_iDkixNISUoFM Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , iucg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 14:08:22 -0000 --=====================_935441150==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 03:19 03/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, Jefsey wrote: >Olaf, >one of the concern that is alluded to in Abdussalam's mail is the >difficulty to understand where (and therefore what) is the action >and target, with so many lists. The IETF is an ISOC affiliate. ISOC >has a list called "IANAxfer". I think we would need to know if one >of the options that is investigated is the transfer >back/consolidation of the IANA as an ISOC affiliate. I do not >advocate it, but I acknowledge that the ISOC consistency and >legitimacy in terms of international trust are probably better than ICANN. > > >I agree, a society is more about the people and ISOC is giving >chance to people to participate in internet technology. In the >future I think that IANA should be with IAB and ISOC. I think Jon >Postel also wanted more society into that new body of IANA but I >still reading history (not easy to find real history these days :-) Abdussalam, The problem is still more complex. As Suzane Woolf advises you, and all the old timers will tell you: read history, but you note it we did not write it .... and many allude to it in a one sided way that does not help understanding the complications. Let me try to help you from the "reality" side. The NTIA retirement is a cute US move in response to Dubai. The difficult point was internet and sovereign interests. If the US overlooked ICANN other states wanted to share. In removing the NTIA the others' Gov argument becomes void. However, what is going to fill the vacuum? The response is simple: when you remove Executive control, control transfers to the Law and is enforced by Justice. If there is no human law, it is the law of the wild. The pratical process is however not as simple as that: 1. because the dominant law on internet operations is the US law, i.e. not only a national law, but a law at odds with all the other laws for historical reasons. 2. Dr. Lessig's quote "code is law" is to be completed by "law induces code" and the history of the US Datacommunications Law is, and will probably continue to be marked by architectonic variations that can be understood in a domestic context, but not on global markets. It just does scale to globality (and was/is not designed for that). Before proceeding any further toward "actionable and concrete suggestions with respect to the content of the document" as Olaf is interested in (and already acted decisions), you have also to penetrate yourself of the architectonic, hence architectural, hence technical, hence operational, hence commercial, hence political context in order to determine by yourself what is the real issue, what should be done, if what is engaged at the IETF, States, Industry and IUsers levels has your agreement or not. IETF: the main recent move to master is RFC 6852. It is the core of the change. It predates XCIT, which predates Snowden, which predates Montevideo and the Sao Paulo announce that tended to the NTIA annoucement if the NTIA is professionnal, and I think they are. The US differs from the other countries by the fact that, even if projects have been carried by ARPA, datacoms did not began within (or were not initially contracted by) the monopoly. They stated in the private sector and the law (FCC under the 1934 Telecommunications Act) had to welcome them in parallel to the ATT Bell System monopoly it had created (like ICANN) because of an "unique authoritative root" equivalent argument: "the telephone by the nature of its technology would operate most efficiently as a monopoly providing universal service" by AT&T president Theodore Vail in 1907. http://www.corp.att.com/history/history3.html (the whole history is interesting). If you want to understand the networks 1974 context (when Vint Cerf and Bob Khan published TCP/IP) you can read the FCC decision in http://etler.com/FCC/pdf/Numbered/20097/FCC%2074-689.pdf Interestingly there is a Telenet complaint which shows that the context was already highly political: http://books.google.nl/books?id=khwnFtEzTccC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=FCC+Tymnet&source=bl&ots=Rkanow5Akr&sig=pE5RVylqcL53SQPeBZgh77xqDUM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rks9U7KBMMLuOrq4gdgE&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=FCC%20Tymnet&f=false The FCC Docket 20097 of Jan 1977 http://etler.com/FCC/pdf/Numbered/20097/FCC%2077-34.pdf is fundamental. This was one year before Vint Cerf proposed the IEN 48 (July 1978) project: (1) as a proof of concept of Louis Pouzin's catenet through a TCP/IP global network. (2) to be used to provide neutral interconnectivity to any communication technology. The first target is brillantly completed. This second target, which has never been implemented yet (being blocked by the "status-quo"), compared with Tymnet's "Advanced Communications Techology" features: http://books.google.nl/books?id=hzN_18kVYokC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=Tymnet+ISIS&source=bl&ots=bzDNJnAow0&sig=imdSA6GDlvGVi11ubCbJgZVVuSY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=els9U-eWOMGSO9a6gIAF&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Tymnet%20ISIS&f=false. ACT was deployed throughout the US International Record Carriers and foreign monopolies to build the public international packet switch services (as well as some of the first large corporation or national networks). Tymnet was counter-strategically acquired by McDonnell Douglas in 1983 once the internet was launched. It turned out that it was in order to prevent (rather than to develop as we believed) network neutrality, the DARPA procurement contracts favoring Unix/IP. On the PTT side they favored X.75/25. Tymnet ACT equally supported both and much more, favoring none. The NTIA removal is therefore occasion for the Internet informed Users (IUsers) to become free to complete the Internet project and eventually implement multi-technologogy transparency on top of the existing internet technology. This is the meaning of the experimentation we have engaged at the RFC 1958 assigned fringe to fringe stratum, outside of the end to end fully respected layers. The architectonical/architectural reasons are out of this mailing list context. jfc --=====================_935441150==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 03:19 03/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:


On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, Jefsey wrote:
Olaf,
one of the concern that is alluded to in Abdussalam's mail is the difficulty to understand where (and therefore what) is the action and target, with so many lists. The IETF is an ISOC affiliate. ISOC has a list called "IANAxfer". I think we would need to know if one of the options that is investigated is the transfer back/consolidation of the IANA as an ISOC affiliate. I do not advocate it, but I acknowledge that the ISOC consistency and legitimacy in terms of international trust are probably better than ICANN.


I agree, a society is more about the people and ISOC is giving chance to people to participate in internet technology. In the future I think that IANA should be with IAB and ISOC. I think Jon Postel also wanted more society into that new body of IANA but I still reading history (not easy to find real history these days :-)

Abdussalam,
The problem is still more complex. As Suzane Woolf advises you, and all the old timers will tell you: read history, but you note it we did not write it .... and many allude to it in a one sided way that does not help understanding the complications. Let me try to help you from the "reality" side.


The NTIA retirement is a cute US move in response to Dubai. The difficult point was internet and sovereign interests. If the US overlooked ICANN other states wanted to share. In removing the NTIA the others' Gov argument becomes void. However, what is going to fill the vacuum? The response is simple: when you remove Executive control, control transfers to the Law and is enforced by Justice. If there is no human law, it is the law of the wild. The pratical process is however not as simple as that:

1. because the dominant law on internet operations is the US law, i.e. not only a national law, but a law at odds with all the other laws for historical reasons.
2. Dr. Lessig's quote "code is law" is to be completed by "law induces code" and the history of the US Datacommunications Law is, and will probably continue to be marked by architectonic variations that can be understood in a domestic context, but not on global markets. It just does scale to globality (and was/is not designed for that).

Before proceeding any further toward "actionable and concrete suggestions with respect to the content of the document" as Olaf is interested in (and already acted decisions), you have also to penetrate yourself of the architectonic, hence architectural, hence technical, hence operational, hence commercial, hence political context in order to determine by yourself what is the real issue, what should be done, if what is engaged at the IETF, States, Industry and IUsers levels has your agreement or not.

IETF: the main recent move to master is RFC 6852. It is the core of the change. It predates XCIT, which predates Snowden, which predates Montevideo and the Sao Paulo announce that tended to the NTIA annoucement if the NTIA is professionnal, and I think they are.

The US differs from the other countries by the fact that, even if projects have been carried by ARPA, datacoms did not began within (or were not initially contracted by) the monopoly. They stated in the private sector and the law (FCC under the 1934 Telecommunications Act) had to welcome them in parallel to the ATT Bell System monopoly it had created (like ICANN) because of an "unique authoritative root" equivalent argument: "the telephone by the nature of its technology would operate most efficiently as a monopoly providing universal service" by AT&T president Theodore Vail in 1907. http://www.corp.att.com/history/history3.html (the whole history is interesting).

If you want to understand the networks 1974 context (when Vint Cerf and Bob Khan published TCP/IP) you can read the FCC decision in http://etler.com/FCC/pdf/Numbered/20097/FCC%2074-689.pdf

Interestingly there is a Telenet complaint which shows that the context was already highly political: http://books.google.nl/books?id=khwnFtEzTccC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=FCC+Tymnet&source=bl&ots=Rkanow5Akr&sig=pE5RVylqcL53SQPeBZgh77xqDUM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rks9U7KBMMLuOrq4gdgE&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=FCC%20Tymnet&f=false

The FCC Docket 20097 of Jan 1977 http://etler.com/FCC/pdf/Numbered/20097/FCC%2077-34.pdf is fundamental. This was one year before Vint Cerf proposed the IEN 48 (July 1978) project:
(1) as a proof of concept of Louis Pouzin's catenet through a TCP/IP global network.
(2) to be used to provide neutral interconnectivity to any communication technology.

The first target is brillantly completed. This second target, which has never been implemented yet (being blocked by the "status-quo"), compared with Tymnet's "Advanced Communications Techology" features:   http://books.google.nl/books?id=hzN_18kVYokC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=Tymnet+ISIS&source=bl&ots=bzDNJnAow0&sig=imdSA6GDlvGVi11ubCbJgZVVuSY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=els9U-eWOMGSO9a6gIAF&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Tymnet%20ISIS&f=false . ACT was deployed throughout the US International Record Carriers and foreign monopolies to build the public international packet switch services (as well as some of the first large corporation or national networks).

Tymnet was counter-strategically acquired by McDonnell Douglas in 1983 once the internet was launched. It turned out that it was in order to prevent (rather than to develop as we believed) network neutrality, the DARPA procurement contracts favoring Unix/IP. On the PTT side they favored X.75/25. Tymnet ACT equally supported both and much more, favoring none.

The NTIA removal is therefore occasion for the Internet informed Users (IUsers) to become free to complete the Internet project and eventually implement multi-technologogy transparency on top of the existing internet technology. This is the meaning of the experimentation we have engaged at the RFC 1958 assigned fringe to fringe stratum, outside of the end to end fully respected layers. The architectonical/architectural reasons are out of this mailing list context.

jfc

--=====================_935441150==.ALT-- From nobody Thu Apr 3 09:57:45 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C5C1A027E for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 09:57:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.631 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 77hpvZ0yaRN9 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 09:57:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A405D1A027C for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 09:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.159.233.116] (port=51943 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WVkxA-00072B-Fd; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 09:57:24 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 18:57:10 +0200 To: Abdussalam Baryun From: Jefsey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/eiJPiNdP61KtPOXZWybxj2GnzGM Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , iucg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 16:57:34 -0000 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 nobody Sat Apr 5 17:55:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B89A1A0394 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:58:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FK5YZ3eXbUyZ for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x22f.google.com (mail-yh0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52BC31A0387 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:58:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f47.google.com with SMTP id 29so2733037yhl.20 for ; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:57:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=A9LTeY8TFPHySsBZ+bUdu4u5kF4RPqqerSP/P1yOAao=; b=puogEuE6wyYYn2BClsz7ww1s65Kzyo4BwM4U3CuZ6tiOnPqJFFT/ZDpiIat1ytRRtY qckYTKqASDUWM2v2BXxlfv7MdWEu6OwxRdJhphK4rDWaCbdIzY5bQ/kNAsiIxKBUj4bb yTYnRNeSuQ1jF4RxzhCHBtfCM8nstkcooCk6EZQG/P8yFPqpMM1JOcctReHAYVBredg1 Ri3/dvKZEETJfxOWIR8AXQBNDlcbjlksLjfWyD4u2XIxfantv8IS+BAGc2KTSwAOucHF ZCpsXrsptgPPrdepWC3e/zaeEoStmEHZ/CUk2RkfsT0tLZ7uBZusAvvl9nqWAzz/oxaO QfyQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.117.98 with SMTP id i62mr14405671yhh.81.1396594678727; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.87.135 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:57:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <533d92f7.42cd700a.0c9c.5af8SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <533d92f7.42cd700a.0c9c.5af8SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 07:57:58 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Jefsey Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3011de27b8a63404f632099b Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/sUOmkP8bC-rtoRFcCMlt8dPQt_E X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 17:55:49 -0700 Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [iucg] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 06:58:08 -0000 --20cf3011de27b8a63404f632099b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: > 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 > > --20cf3011de27b8a63404f632099b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jefsey,

I think the proposal has things missing. It w= ill become more important if they mention what community it is talking abou= t. 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 I= SOC president.=A0

ISOC, IAB and IETF are the real bodies that community u= se to participate in the real internet development. The community access an= d proposals are usually through their usual discussion=A0lists not icann or= NTIA.=A0Why such proposals ignore that? However the draft of IAB is=A0impo= rtant for NTIA to understand.=A0

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)=A0to explain more clo= ser its real=A0points and to enhance multistakeholder discussions.=A0=A0

Thanks for your help.=A0

Regar= ds
AB

On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Jefsey wrote:
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-a= ssistant-secretary-strickling-hearing-ensuring-security-stabi= lity-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 mo= del.
3. the transition proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resil= iency of the Internet DNS
4. the transition proposal must meet the needs and expectations of the glob= al customers and partners of the IANA services.
5. the transition proposal must maintain the openness of the Internet and m= aintain the global interoperability through neutral and judgment free admin= istration.
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-co= nvened 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 t= o be preserved so as to avoid single points of failure, manipulation or cap= ture", and further on "Any transition of the NTIA role must maint= ain this neutral and judgment free administration, thereby maintaining the = global interoperability of the Internet", something rather different f= rom 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 ove= r the Internet. =A0This played out during the 2012 World Conference on Inte= rnational Telecommunications in Dubai where the world split on fundamental = issues of Internet governance. =A0This issue will likely resurface at the O= ctober 2014 International Telecommunication Union Plenipotentiary Conferenc= e, where we expect some countries to once again attempt to insert themselve= s in the middle of decisions impacting the Internet."

The idea that the countries who signed so far the ITR are "authoritari= an" countries htt= ps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-signe= d-itu-wcit-treaty-who-didnt.shtml is technically preoccupying, b= ecause 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 A= ct: Snowdenia shown that it could have been judicious.

The internet is deployed in a real world.
jfc

--20cf3011de27b8a63404f632099b-- From nobody Sat Apr 5 19:23:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7E371A01E9 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 19:23:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.632 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H8vJ6gfuLk0l for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 19:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CCCD1A01D9 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 19:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.159.233.116] (port=64720 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WWcjk-00081O-0I; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 19:23:08 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 04:22:53 +0200 To: Abdussalam Baryun From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1152338716==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/fgajA9Ds99s4eJdh_0XpWG3RtP4 Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: [iucg] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 02:23:19 -0000 --=====================_1152338716==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:58 04/04/2014, iucg-owner@ietf.org wrote: >Hi Jefsey, >I think the proposal has things missing. Adussalam, the proposal I mention is the proposal that the NTIA expects from ICANN. You can padd what you see fit in it. >It will become more important if they mention what community it is >talking about. Is it world community? The way I read this is that there is a false "community" concept used by ICANN and Strikling (NTIA): - ICANN stakeholders are the SOs and entities that have contracted with ICANN or the NTIA, i.e. co-produce what ICANN does. - ICANN community is made of all those who depend on what ICANN does - ALAC, GAC, WGs being some internal sub-stakeholders. They express themsleves through public comments or the /1net mailing list. As Paul Towmey explained it in Paris, ICANN is interested in the people who pay it. I object this understanding for 15 years because: (1) the first ones who have an indirect contract with ICANN are the registrants and ICANN never accepted an SO of registrants. (2) every user using a Class IN domain name has also an indirect QoS moral contract with ICANN and should participate to decisions. (3) you can navigate the net without being dependent on anything contracted with ICANN. This is why I stick to the "multitude" concept. Everyone from everywhere with their access, and entire individual self-determination capacity. This difference in what is by then a stakeholder makes the whole difference. The MSist granularity is not the same. And as a result the conception of what is the IANA: a database or a registry information protocol. >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. Once the NTIA is gone, ICANN, ISOC, IAB and IETF should be no more important to IUsers (informed, intelligent, individual, etc. users) at internet layers, than ITU at bandwidth layers, as long as they do not endanger their used net neutrality. The first way they may endanger it is through the copyrights on RFCs. They must keep RFCs available for free to everyone, but they are allowed to forbide or protect "derivative work". This is why new use oriented developments must be at the missing presentation layer six and above, with good layer separation in order not to be dependent from copyrighted derivative work. The IETF Trust area is the IETF end to end scope. IUse is fringe to fringe (extended services on active content) and above (semiotic networking). Respect and stability of the IETF protocol stratum standards are as important to IUsers, as respect and stability of the ITU bandwidth stratum standards are to the IETF. This is what network layers are about. >I hope people from NTIA participate in this list and in other >community lists like ISOC (not only through their web page, to >explain more closer its real points and to enhance multistakeholder >discussions. This is not their cup of tea. They are not interested anymore. They have over babysited ICANN (this was supposed to last a few months or one year or so). They say to ICANN: you are grown up, show us that you can survive by yourself. Otherwise, it means you will never be ready. They want to know if during the three years and half before 9/9/19 they have or not to foster a viable alternative, or if the ICANN/NTIA system can eventually stand by itself (9/9/19 to give the world a three weeks emergency buffer. >because their web is mostly for their citizens not the world) The NTIA's purpose is the best interest of their citizens. The best interest of their citizens wasto help the world develops so they could make more busines with them. They fully realize that Snowdenia plus the support they have to provide to ICANN gives a counter-productive image that costs to their citizens' business, not permiting them to expand as if there was no suspicion about the independance of ICANN, and doubt about its adequacy. The best interest of their citizens is therefore to severe the links, banalize the situation, restore trust in removing themselves, permit the US businesses to take a full advantage from their US laws applyong to most of the internet business, and to lobby the Congress in order to get them best adapted to their leadership status-quo preservation. However, they do not want ICANN to collapse in the meanwhile and to be accused to have let them down. So, they want to show they have demanded guaranties. They will ask other Govs to ask the same: "ICANN! shows us that you can take the con". Personally, as my own VGN master, I do not want to take the risk. Either than ICANN fails, or that the NTIA's transition does not work (this is a real change we never tested in 35 years). This is why I started up Milton Muller's DNSA proposition, in a multitude MSism oriented version; rather than his institutional MSism compromise (that ICANN does not seem to listen to). This http://dnsa.org is an experimentation where every IUser can participate, contribute, control, be transparently informed through a multilingual, multitechnology FLOSS oriented, Wiki approach. Hence my questions and remarks to Olaf. Best. jfc >On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Jefsey wrote: >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 > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Subject: confirm a8e872d52d95f6f8206e45027ec9903860fe5412 >Sender: iucg-request@ietf.org >From: iucg-request@ietf.org >Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:58:09 -0700 >Message-ID: > >If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact, >Mailman will discard the held message. Do this if the message is >spam. If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header >with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting >to the list. The Approved: header can also appear in the first line >of the body of the reply. --=====================_1152338716==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 08:58 04/04/2014, iucg-owner@ietf.org wrote:
Hi Jefsey,
I think the proposal has things missing.

Adussalam,
the proposal I mention is the proposal that the NTIA expects from ICANN. You can padd what you see fit in it.

It will become more important if they mention what community it is talking about. Is it world community?

The way I read this is that there is a false "community" concept used by ICANN and Strikling (NTIA):
- ICANN stakeholders are the SOs and entities that have contracted with ICANN or the NTIA, i.e. co-produce what ICANN does.
- ICANN community is made of all those who depend on what ICANN does - ALAC, GAC, WGs being some internal sub-stakeholders. They express themsleves through public comments or the /1net mailing list.
As Paul Towmey explained it in Paris, ICANN is interested in the people who pay it.

I object this understanding for 15 years because:
(1) the first ones who have an indirect contract with ICANN are the registrants and ICANN never accepted an SO of registrants.
(2) every user using a Class IN domain name has also an indirect QoS moral contract with ICANN and should participate to decisions.
(3) you can navigate the net without being dependent on anything contracted with ICANN.

This is why I stick to the "multitude" concept. Everyone from everywhere with their access, and entire individual self-determination capacity. This difference in what is by then a stakeholder makes the whole difference. The MSist granularity is not the same. And as a result the conception of what is the IANA: a database or a registry information protocol.

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.

Once the NTIA is gone, ICANN, ISOC, IAB and IETF should be no more important to IUsers (informed, intelligent, individual, etc. users) at internet layers, than ITU at bandwidth layers, as long as they do not endanger their used net neutrality. The first way they may endanger it is through the copyrights on RFCs. They must keep RFCs available for free to everyone, but they are allowed to forbide or protect "derivative work". This is why new use oriented developments must be at the missing presentation layer six and above, with good layer separation in order not to be dependent from copyrighted derivative work.

The IETF Trust area is the IETF end to end scope. IUse is fringe to fringe (extended services on active content) and above (semiotic networking). Respect and stability of the IETF protocol stratum standards are as important to IUsers, as respect and stability of the ITU bandwidth stratum standards are to the IETF. This is what network layers are about.

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

This is not their cup of tea. They are not interested anymore. They have over babysited ICANN (this was supposed to last a few months or one year or so). They say to ICANN: you are grown up, show us that you can survive by yourself. Otherwise, it means you will never be ready. They want to know if during the three years and half before 9/9/19 they have or not to foster a viable alternative, or if the ICANN/NTIA system can eventually stand by itself (9/9/19 to give the world a three weeks emergency buffer.

because their web is mostly for their citizens not the world)

The NTIA's purpose is the best interest of their citizens. The best interest of their citizens wasto help the world develops so they could make more busines with them. They fully realize that Snowdenia plus the support they have to provide to ICANN gives a counter-productive image that costs to their citizens' business, not permiting them to expand as if there was no suspicion about the independance of ICANN, and doubt about its adequacy. The best interest of their citizens is therefore to severe the links, banalize the situation, restore trust in removing themselves, permit the US businesses to take a full advantage from their US laws applyong to most of the internet business, and to lobby the Congress in order to get them best adapted to their leadership status-quo preservation. However, they do not want ICANN to collapse in the meanwhile and to be accused to have let them down. So, they want to show they have demanded guaranties. They will ask other Govs to ask the same: "ICANN! shows us that you can take the con".

Personally, as my own VGN master, I do not want to take the risk. Either than ICANN fails, or that the NTIA's transition does not work (this is a real change we never tested in 35 years). This is why I started up Milton Muller's DNSA proposition, in a multitude MSism oriented version; rather than his institutional MSism compromise (that ICANN does not seem to listen to).

This http://dnsa.org is an experimentation where every IUser can participate, contribute, control, be transparently informed through a multilingual, multitechnology FLOSS oriented, Wiki approach.

Hence my questions and remarks to Olaf.

Best.

jfc



On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Jefsey wrote:
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

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: confirm a8e872d52d95f6f8206e45027ec9903860fe5412
Sender: iucg-request@ietf.org
From: iucg-request@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:58:09 -0700
Message-ID: <mailman.3036.1396594689.2468.iucg@ietf.org>

If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact,
Mailman will discard the held message.  Do this if the message is
spam.  If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header
with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting
to the list.  The Approved: header can also appear in the first line
of the body of the reply.
--=====================_1152338716==.ALT-- From nobody Sun Apr 6 02:04:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D0FA1A0384 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 02:04:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6LsvMPSnD2R5 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 02:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x232.google.com (mail-yk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5851A0380 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 02:04:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yk0-f178.google.com with SMTP id 79so4475544ykr.23 for ; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 02:04:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=t6a8S4tv5dfjuRDfjxJzJG2ZYk2bXr0QFB4sCQXk0WQ=; b=PokOwNLbkCxu84uXQArivN9LxS4cd4tOaeqIwNrisOh9oa/tw/onpfzuBw17DMCmSv oicYQ5XST81oOMm9kERfQXjjZrsVh3MM7cwV6eSBwZ4wRJY/dvl7S904TGfLCu4UDKHR yglvphHxQZCQDlsPpa0i8yNqhPMaRVi6jIMZsIRhhmBBhtUqLv24zo/0K9qgu361gPvG krhbcmxalN/m5/+Zudiru+TMZa6kA5gLWfd4tFq5VELZx5fBvPDk+lPH3k+crsnAUnO2 Zw27XvbZFBaYD4q86az3rfW1UCo8VCwmQpaDBxBHCOvllRXCE8ovvlWyDA5WbSd0/tfi qM7w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.150.205 with SMTP id z53mr34203784yhj.75.1396775056685; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 02:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.87.135 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 02:04:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5340ba8f.48ae0e0a.769c.ffff8141SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <5340ba8f.48ae0e0a.769c.ffff8141SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 10:04:16 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Jefsey Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303a2d6115be7a04f65c09b5 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/wLAoAJ-x8ouUuyktFgnd7aWDQOo Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [iucg] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 09:04:32 -0000 --20cf303a2d6115be7a04f65c09b5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I agree, however, the problem is that ICANN and NTIA don't realise what is happening in the world. The future is to people, the new generation will change that all. The history of governments in control of internet is no longer present. The NTIA realised its failures but still trying more hard to keep some available opportunity which I don't blame them. I think your proposal is ok but may not be practical now, we need first to have the transition. Then in future more transitions will happen to get to your proposal. AB On Sunday, April 6, 2014, Jefsey wrote: > At 08:58 04/04/2014, iucg-owner@ietf.orgwrote: > > Hi Jefsey, > I think the proposal has things missing. > > > Adussalam, > the proposal I mention is the proposal that the NTIA expects from ICANN. > You can padd what you see fit in it. > > It will become more important if they mention what community it is talking > about. Is it world community? > > > The way I read this is that there is a false "community" concept used by > ICANN and Strikling (NTIA): > - ICANN stakeholders are the SOs and entities that have contracted with > ICANN or the NTIA, i.e. co-produce what ICANN does. > - ICANN community is made of all those who depend on what ICANN does - > ALAC, GAC, WGs being some internal sub-stakeholders. They express > themsleves through public comments or the /1net mailing list. > As Paul Towmey explained it in Paris, ICANN is interested in the people > who pay it. > > I object this understanding for 15 years because: > (1) the first ones who have an indirect contract with ICANN are the > registrants and ICANN never accepted an SO of registrants. > (2) every user using a Class IN domain name has also an indirect QoS moral > contract with ICANN and should participate to decisions. > (3) you can navigate the net without being dependent on anything > contracted with ICANN. > > This is why I stick to the "multitude" concept. Everyone from everywhere > with their access, and entire individual self-determination capacity. This > difference in what is by then a stakeholder makes the whole difference. The > MSist granularity is not the same. And as a result the conception of what > is the IANA: a database or a registry information protocol. > > 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. > > > Once the NTIA is gone, ICANN, ISOC, IAB and IETF should be no more > important to IUsers (informed, intelligent, individual, etc. users) at > internet layers, than ITU at bandwidth layers, as long as they do not > endanger their used net neutrality. The first way they may endanger it is > through the copyrights on RFCs. They must keep RFCs available for free to > everyone, but they are allowed to forbide or protect "derivative work". > This is why new use oriented developments must be at the missing > presentation layer six and above, with good layer separation in order not > to be dependent from copyrighted derivative work. > > The IETF Trust area is the IETF end to end scope. IUse is fringe to fringe > (extended services on active content) and above (semiotic networking). > Respect and stability of the IETF protocol stratum standards are as > important to IUsers, as respect and stability of the ITU bandwidth stratum > standards are to the IETF. This is what network layers are about. > > I hope people from NTIA participate in this list and in other community > lists like ISOC (not only through their web page, to explain more closer > its real points and to enhance multistakeholder discussions. > > > This is not their cup of tea. They are not interested anymore. They have > over babysited ICANN (this was supposed to last a few months or one year or > so). They say to ICANN: you are grown up, show us that you can survive by > yourself. Otherwise, it means you will never be ready. They want to know if > during the three years and half before 9/9/19 they have or not to foster a > viable alternative, or if the ICANN/NTIA system can eventually stand by > itself (9/9/19 to give the world a three weeks emergency buffer. > > because their web is mostly for their citizens not the world) > > > The NTIA's purpose is the best interest of their citizens. The best > interest of their citizens wasto help the world develops so they could make > more busines with them. They fully realize that Snowdenia plus the support > they have to provide to ICANN gives a counter-productive image that costs > to their citizens' business, not permiting them to expand as if there was > no suspicion about the independance of ICANN, and doubt about its adequacy. > The best interest of their citizens is therefore to severe the links, > banalize the situation, restore trust in removing themselves, permit the US > businesses to take a full advantage from their US laws applyong to most of > the internet business, and to lobby the Congress in order to get them best > adapted to their leadership status-quo preservation. However, they do not > want ICANN to collapse in the meanwhile and to be accused to have let them > down. So, they want to show they have demanded guaranties. They will ask > other Govs to ask the same: "ICANN! shows us that you can take the con". > > Personally, as my own VGN master, I do not want to take the risk. Either > than ICANN fails, or that the NTIA's transition does not work (this is a > real change we never tested in 35 years). This is why I started up Milton > Muller's DNSA proposition, in a multitude MSism oriented version; rather > than his institutional MSism compromise (that ICANN does not seem to listen > to). > > This http://dnsa.org is an experimentation where every IUser can > participate, contribute, control, be transparently informed through a > multilingual, multitechnology FLOSS oriented, Wiki approach. > > Hence my questions and remarks to Olaf. > > Best. > > jfc > > > > On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Jefsey wrote: > 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.shtmlis 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 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Subject: confirm a8e872d52d95f6f8206e45027ec9903860fe5412 > Sender: iucg-request@ietf.org > From: iucg-request@ietf.org > Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:58:09 -0700 > Message-ID: > > > > If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact, > Mailman will discard the held message. Do this if the message is > spam. If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header > with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting > to the list. The Approved: header can also appear in the first line > of the body of the reply. > > --20cf303a2d6115be7a04f65c09b5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree, however, the problem is that ICANN and NTIA don't realise what= is happening in the world. The future is to people, the new generation wil= l change that all. The history of governments in control of internet=A0is n= o longer present. The NTIA realised its failures but still trying more hard= to keep some available=A0opportunity which I don't blame them. I think= your proposal is ok but may not be practical now, we need first to have th= e transition. Then in future more transitions will happen to get to your pr= oposal.=A0

AB

On Sunday, April 6, 2014, Jefsey wrote:
At 08:58 04/04/2014, iucg-owner@ietf.org wrote:<= br>
Hi Jefsey,
I think the proposal has things missing.

Adussalam,
the proposal I mention is the proposal that the NTIA expects from ICANN. You can padd what you see fit in it.

It will become more important if they mention what community it is talking about. Is it world community?

The way I read this is that there is a false "community" concept used by ICANN and Strikling (NTIA):
- ICANN stakeholders are the SOs and entities that have contracted with ICANN or the NTIA, i.e. co-produce what ICANN does.
- ICANN community is made of all those who depend on what ICANN does - ALAC, GAC, WGs being some internal sub-stakeholders. They express themsleves through public comments or the /1net mailing list.
As Paul Towmey explained it in Paris, ICANN is interested in the people who pay it.

I object this understanding for 15 years because:
(1) the first ones who have an indirect contract with ICANN are the registrants and ICANN never accepted an SO of registrants.
(2) every user using a Class IN domain name has also an indirect QoS moral contract with ICANN and should participate to decisions.
(3) you can navigate the net without being dependent on anything contracted with ICANN.

This is why I stick to the "multitude" concept. Everyone from everywhere with their access, and entire individual self-determination capacity. This difference in what is by then a stakeholder makes the whole difference. The MSist granularity is not the same. And as a result the conception of what is the IANA: a database or a registry information protocol.

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.

Once the NTIA is gone, ICANN, ISOC, IAB and IETF should be no more important to IUsers (informed, intelligent, individual, etc. users) at internet layers, than ITU at bandwidth layers, as long as they do not endanger their used net neutrality. The first way they may endanger it is through the copyrights on RFCs. They must keep RFCs available for free to everyone, but they are allowed to forbide or protect "derivative work". This is why new use oriented developments must be at the missing presentation layer six and above, with good layer separation in order not to be dependent from copyrighted derivative work.

The IETF Trust area is the IETF end to end scope. IUse is fringe to fringe (extended services on active content) and above (semiotic networking). Respect and stability of the IETF protocol stratum standards are as important to IUsers, as respect and stability of the ITU bandwidth stratum standards are to the IETF. This is what network layers are about.

I hope people from NTIA participate in this list and in other community lists like ISOC (not only through their web page, to explain more closer its real points and to enhance multistakeholder discussions.=A0

This is not their cup of tea. They are not interested anymore. They have over babysited ICANN (this was supposed to last a few months or one year or so). They say to ICANN: you are grown up, show us that you can survive by yourself. Otherwise, it means you will never be ready. They want to know if during the three years and half before 9/9/19 they have or not to foster a viable alternative, or if the ICANN/NTIA system can eventually stand by itself (9/9/19 to give the world a three weeks emergency buffer.

because their web is mostly for their citizens not the world)

The NTIA's purpose is the best interest of their citizens. The best interest of their citizens wasto help the world develops so they could make more busines with them. They fully realize that Snowdenia plus the support they have to provide to ICANN gives a counter-productive image that costs to their citizens' business, not permiting them to expand as if there was no suspicion about the independance of ICANN, and doubt about its adequacy. The best interest of their citizens is therefore to severe the links, banalize the situation, restore trust in removing themselves, permit the US businesses to take a full advantage from their US laws applyong to most of the internet business, and to lobby the Congress in order to get them best adapted to their leadership status-quo preservation. However, they do not want ICANN to collapse in the meanwhile and to be accused to have let them down. So, they want to show they have demanded guaranties. They will ask other Govs to ask the same: "ICANN! shows us that you can take the con".

Personally, as my own VGN master, I do not want to take the risk. Either than ICANN fails, or that the NTIA's transition does not work (this is = a real change we never tested in 35 years). This is why I started up Milton Muller's DNSA proposition, in a multitude MSism oriented version; rathe= r than his institutional MSism compromise (that ICANN does not seem to listen to).

This http://dnsa.org is an experimentation where every IUser can participate, contribute, control, be transparently informed through a multilingual, multitechnology FLOSS oriented, Wiki approach.

Hence my questions and remarks to Olaf.

Best.

jfc



On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Jefsey wrote:
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 Inter= net 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 n= ot 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.=A0 This played out during the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai where the world split on fundamental issues of Internet governance.=A0 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

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: confirm a8e872d52d95f6f8206e45027ec9903860fe5412
Sender: iucg-request@ietf.org
From: iucg-request@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:58:09 -0700
Message-ID: <mailman.3036.= 1396594689.2468.iucg@ietf.org>

If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact,
Mailman will discard the held message.=A0 Do this if the message is
spam.=A0 If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header
with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting
to the list.=A0 The Approved: header can also appear in the first line
of the body of the reply.
--20cf303a2d6115be7a04f65c09b5-- From nobody Sun Apr 6 18:10:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE421A063C for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:10:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.632 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bl8QZX9IFsXO for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:10:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A901A063A for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:10:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.159.233.116] (port=29847 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WWy4c-0002dP-0W; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:10:07 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:49:58 +0200 To: Abdussalam Baryun From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: References: <5340ba8f.48ae0e0a.769c.ffff8141SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1234354088==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/qlL1jUHE2wtAVdNAwKP6LcAF7n8 Cc: agora@dnsa.org, "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [iucg] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 01:10:17 -0000 --=====================_1234354088==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 11:04 06/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >I agree, however, the problem is that ICANN and NTIA don't realise >what is happening in the world. The future is to people, the new >generation will change that all. The history of governments in >control of internet is no longer present. The NTIA realised its >failures but still trying more hard to keep some available >opportunity which I don't blame them. I think your proposal is ok >but may not be practical now, we need first to have the transition. >Then in future more transitions will happen to get to your proposal. Abdussalam, This IETF (copy to IUCG). No need for ICANN blahblah. Decision is by running code (IETF) and living mode (IUCG). The aim is to concert, develop, experiment and report. IMHO (1) NTIA just got bored with a13 years late ICANN (their FAQ states: ""NTIA's role was always meant to be a temporary and transitional role only with the goal of completing the transition by 2000.". Yes, 2000! (2) they do not expect anything by ICANN or any other one, just for something (singular or plural) to emerge that suits people. I am only my own VGN (virtual global network) Master and all I try to do is to protect my interests: in spite of the-good will of so many architects, engineers, politicians, industrial and business leaders, banks, civil society, academics, I am dumb stubborn as I wish to eventually self-determine (this is the definition of the multitude fellows). If what we, VGN, hosts, site, and access masters (i.e. IUsers) try to build for ourselves suits others IUsers all the better. We do not need transition, just to better organize ourselves now we know that the NTIA agreed our plea: to get rid of the NTIACANNA. If we organize together, we may have a chance the solution works for more. Best jfc >AB > >On Sunday, April 6, 2014, Jefsey wrote: >At 08:58 04/04/2014, iucg-owner@ietf.org wrote: >>Hi Jefsey, >>I think the proposal has things missing. > >Adussalam, >the proposal I mention is the proposal that the NTIA expects from >ICANN. You can padd what you see fit in it. > >>It will become more important if they mention what community it is >>talking about. Is it world community? > >The way I read this is that there is a false "community" concept >used by ICANN and Strikling (NTIA): >- ICANN stakeholders are the SOs and entities that have contracted >with ICANN or the NTIA, i.e. co-produce what ICANN does. >- ICANN community is made of all those who depend on what ICANN does >- ALAC, GAC, WGs being some internal sub-stakeholders. They express >themsleves through public comments or the /1net mailing list. >As Paul Towmey explained it in Paris, ICANN is interested in the >people who pay it. > >I object this understanding for 15 years because: >(1) the first ones who have an indirect contract with ICANN are the >registrants and ICANN never accepted an SO of registrants. >(2) every user using a Class IN domain name has also an indirect QoS >moral contract with ICANN and should participate to decisions. >(3) you can navigate the net without being dependent on anything >contracted with ICANN. > >This is why I stick to the "multitude" concept. Everyone from >everywhere with their access, and entire individual >self-determination capacity. This difference in what is by then a >stakeholder makes the whole difference. The MSist granularity is not >the same. And as a result the conception of what is the IANA: a >database or a registry information protocol. > >>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. > >Once the NTIA is gone, ICANN, ISOC, IAB and IETF should be no more >important to IUsers (informed, intelligent, individual, etc. users) >at internet layers, than ITU at bandwidth layers, as long as they do >not endanger their used net neutrality. The first way they may >endanger it is through the copyrights on RFCs. They must keep RFCs >available for free to everyone, but they are allowed to forbide or >protect "derivative work". This is why new use oriented developments >must be at the missing presentation layer six and above, with good >layer separation in order not to be dependent from copyrighted derivative work. > >The IETF Trust area is the IETF end to end scope. IUse is fringe to >fringe (extended services on active content) and above (semiotic >networking). Respect and stability of the IETF protocol stratum >standards are as important to IUsers, as respect and stability of >the ITU bandwidth stratum standards are to the IETF. This is what >network layers are about. > >>I hope people from NTIA participate in this list and in other >>community lists like ISOC (not only through their web page, to >>explain more closer its real points and to enhance multistakeholder >>discussions. > >This is not their cup of tea. They are not interested anymore. They >have over babysited ICANN (this was supposed to last a few months or >one year or so). They say to ICANN: you are grown up, show us that >you can survive by yourself. Otherwise, it means you will never be >ready. They want to know if during the three years and half before >9/9/19 they have or not to foster a viable alternative, or if the >ICANN/NTIA system can eventually stand by itself (9/9/19 to give the >world a three weeks emergency buffer. > >>because their web is mostly for their citizens not the world) > >The NTIA's purpose is the best interest of their citizens. The best >interest of their citizens wasto help the world develops so they >could make more busines with them. They fully realize that Snowdenia >plus the support they have to provide to ICANN gives a >counter-productive image that costs to their citizens' business, not >permiting them to expand as if there was no suspicion about the >independance of ICANN, and doubt about its adequacy. The best >interest of their citizens is therefore to severe the links, >banalize the situation, restore trust in removing themselves, permit >the US businesses to take a full advantage from their US laws >applyong to most of the internet business, and to lobby the Congress >in order to get them best adapted to their leadership status-quo >preservation. However, they do not want ICANN to collapse in the >meanwhile and to be accused to have let them down. So, they want to >show they have demanded guaranties. They will ask other Govs to ask >the same: "ICANN! shows us that you can take the con". > >Personally, as my own VGN master, I do not want to take the risk. >Either than ICANN fails, or that the NTIA's transition does not work >(this is a real change we never tested in 35 years). This is why I >started up Milton Muller's DNSA proposition, in a multitude MSism >oriented version; rather than his institutional MSism compromise >(that ICANN does not seem to listen to). > >This http://dnsa.org is an experimentation where >every IUser can participate, contribute, control, be transparently >informed through a multilingual, multitechnology FLOSS oriented, >Wiki approach. > >Hence my questions and remarks to Olaf. > >Best. > >jfc > > > >>On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Jefsey wrote: >>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 >> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Subject: confirm a8e872d52d95f6f8206e45027ec9903860fe5412 >>Sender: iucg-request@ietf.org >>From: iucg-request@ietf.org >>Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:58:09 -0700 >>Message-ID: >> >>If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact, >>Mailman will discard the held message. Do this if the message is >>spam. If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header >>with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting >>to the list. The Approved: header can also appear in the first line >>of the body of the reply. --=====================_1234354088==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 11:04 06/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I agree, however, the problem is that ICANN and NTIA don't realise what is happening in the world. The future is to people, the new generation will change that all. The history of governments in control of internet is no longer present. The NTIA realised its failures but still trying more hard to keep some available opportunity which I don't blame them. I think your proposal is ok but may not be practical now, we need first to have the transition. Then in future more transitions will happen to get to your proposal.

Abdussalam,
This IETF (copy to IUCG). No need for ICANN blahblah. Decision is by running code (IETF) and living mode (IUCG). The aim is to concert, develop, experiment and report.

IMHO (1) NTIA just got bored with a13 years late ICANN (their FAQ states: ""NTIA’s role was always meant to be a temporary and transitional role only with the goal of completing the transition by 2000.". Yes, 2000! (2) they do not expect anything by ICANN or any other one, just for something (singular or plural) to emerge that suits people.

I am only my own VGN (virtual global network) Master and all I try to do is to protect my interests: in spite of the-good will of so many architects, engineers, politicians, industrial and business leaders, banks, civil society, academics, I am dumb stubborn as I wish to eventually self-determine (this is the definition of the multitude fellows). If what we, VGN, hosts, site, and access masters (i.e. IUsers) try to build for ourselves suits others IUsers all the better. We do not need transition, just to better organize ourselves now we know that the NTIA agreed our plea: to get rid of the NTIACANNA.

If we organize together, we may have a chance the solution works for more.

Best
jfc

AB

On Sunday, April 6, 2014, Jefsey wrote:
At 08:58 04/04/2014, iucg-owner@ietf.org wrote:
Hi Jefsey,
I think the proposal has things missing.

Adussalam,
the proposal I mention is the proposal that the NTIA expects from ICANN. You can padd what you see fit in it.

It will become more important if they mention what community it is talking about. Is it world community?

The way I read this is that there is a false "community" concept used by ICANN and Strikling (NTIA):
- ICANN stakeholders are the SOs and entities that have contracted with ICANN or the NTIA, i.e. co-produce what ICANN does.
- ICANN community is made of all those who depend on what ICANN does - ALAC, GAC, WGs being some internal sub-stakeholders. They express themsleves through public comments or the /1net mailing list.
As Paul Towmey explained it in Paris, ICANN is interested in the people who pay it.

I object this understanding for 15 years because:
(1) the first ones who have an indirect contract with ICANN are the registrants and ICANN never accepted an SO of registrants.
(2) every user using a Class IN domain name has also an indirect QoS moral contract with ICANN and should participate to decisions.
(3) you can navigate the net without being dependent on anything contracted with ICANN.

This is why I stick to the "multitude" concept. Everyone from everywhere with their access, and entire individual self-determination capacity. This difference in what is by then a stakeholder makes the whole difference. The MSist granularity is not the same. And as a result the conception of what is the IANA: a database or a registry information protocol.

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.

Once the NTIA is gone, ICANN, ISOC, IAB and IETF should be no more important to IUsers (informed, intelligent, individual, etc. users) at internet layers, than ITU at bandwidth layers, as long as they do not endanger their used net neutrality. The first way they may endanger it is through the copyrights on RFCs. They must keep RFCs available for free to everyone, but they are allowed to forbide or protect "derivative work". This is why new use oriented developments must be at the missing presentation layer six and above, with good layer separation in order not to be dependent from copyrighted derivative work.

The IETF Trust area is the IETF end to end scope. IUse is fringe to fringe (extended services on active content) and above (semiotic networking). Respect and stability of the IETF protocol stratum standards are as important to IUsers, as respect and stability of the ITU bandwidth stratum standards are to the IETF. This is what network layers are about.

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

This is not their cup of tea. They are not interested anymore. They have over babysited ICANN (this was supposed to last a few months or one year or so). They say to ICANN: you are grown up, show us that you can survive by yourself. Otherwise, it means you will never be ready. They want to know if during the three years and half before 9/9/19 they have or not to foster a viable alternative, or if the ICANN/NTIA system can eventually stand by itself (9/9/19 to give the world a three weeks emergency buffer.

because their web is mostly for their citizens not the world)

The NTIA's purpose is the best interest of their citizens. The best interest of their citizens wasto help the world develops so they could make more busines with them. They fully realize that Snowdenia plus the support they have to provide to ICANN gives a counter-productive image that costs to their citizens' business, not permiting them to expand as if there was no suspicion about the independance of ICANN, and doubt about its adequacy. The best interest of their citizens is therefore to severe the links, banalize the situation, restore trust in removing themselves, permit the US businesses to take a full advantage from their US laws applyong to most of the internet business, and to lobby the Congress in order to get them best adapted to their leadership status-quo preservation. However, they do not want ICANN to collapse in the meanwhile and to be accused to have let them down. So, they want to show they have demanded guaranties. They will ask other Govs to ask the same: "ICANN! shows us that you can take the con".

Personally, as my own VGN master, I do not want to take the risk. Either than ICANN fails, or that the NTIA's transition does not work (this is a real change we never tested in 35 years). This is why I started up Milton Muller's DNSA proposition, in a multitude MSism oriented version; rather than his institutional MSism compromise (that ICANN does not seem to listen to).

This http://dnsa.org is an experimentation where every IUser can participate, contribute, control, be transparently informed through a multilingual, multitechnology FLOSS oriented, Wiki approach.

Hence my questions and remarks to Olaf.

Best.

jfc



On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Jefsey wrote:
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

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: confirm a8e872d52d95f6f8206e45027ec9903860fe5412
Sender: iucg-request@ietf.org
From: iucg-request@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:58:09 -0700
Message-ID: <mailman.3036.1396594689.2468.iucg@ietf.org>

If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact,
Mailman will discard the held message.  Do this if the message is
spam.  If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header
with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting
to the list.  The Approved: header can also appear in the first line
of the body of the reply.
--=====================_1234354088==.ALT-- From nobody Mon Apr 7 06:09:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 005861A06FB for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 06:09:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.631 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iUB32PpJaiRd for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 06:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF7861A03F5 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 06:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.159.233.116] (port=49046 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WX9IX-0002g9-Mu; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 06:09:14 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:09:08 +0200 To: Brian E Carpenter , John Curran ,Vint Cerf , Abdussalam Baryun From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: <5342281D.7020105@gmail.com> References: <20140326091244.818F921364D@smtp2.arin.net> <7F11B8A9-988A-4CC1-B6C9-C96D756E39B0@istaff.org> <20140326183653.DEFE721365F@smtp2.arin.net> <170128E5-F66A-4AC1-A2D7-FB759B5BB040@istaff.org> <5333541d.497eb40a.23db.ffffd191SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <0b6b01cf4950$7e00b2a0$7a0217e0$@gmail.com> <01f101cf49c7$26b242d0$7416c870$@gmail.com> <5337E9F5.9040005@cis-india.org> <53386E62.2010901@gmail.com> <533F17DC.3070803@cis-india.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20140404140312.0c246828@resistor.net> <50134989-9F60-4333-9281-90E89232D37E@virtualized.org> <533F396F.4090606@cis-india.org> <51501111-1F6C-4E70-8D59-2D006E1B5FBC@istaff.org> <5342281D.7020105@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/4ER9mID4MCRTXPVPMaYuPegYRIQ Cc: agora@dnsa.org, S Moonesamy , 1Net List , "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism? X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:09:25 -0000 The problem we first face is to use at least 6 lists to discuss the same thing under different but crossed perspectives. If we cannot fix it, it is likely we will not be able to fix the NTIA removal issue! At 06:22 07/04/2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >(This hasn't happened, but not dissimilar things have happened over >both character sets and cryptographic algorithms.) Except to support orthotypography (e.g. the French language majuscules) :-) ! You are aboslutely correct: this is the difference between people and multitude. People can be affiliated and usually are (nations, political parties, etc.). Multitude is the aggregation of persons retaining their self-determinaton. This is why democracy (people at least accept the same constitution that organizes it) is not polycracy (people [and their machines]) only accept their own determination. The whole issue in our debate is to determine if we want to consider others as belonging to a democraticaly sovereign community or to a polycratic multitude of sovereigns. In other words, if IG acknowledges our national laws (we need states), only the international law (we need UN) or our free covenants (such as RFCs, ICANN contracts, etc.), but who provides arbitration and enforcement? Can ICE, or can a foreign Judge, proceed to the seizure of my nationally located site. At 08:05 07/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote >People can't be responsible when governments fail even if the people >elect the government. People/organisations cannot be responsible for >ICANN's fail/success even if they were given time to propose, elect >directors, direct, participate, or/and discuss the transition. This >transition is mostly under NTIA responsibility, and will end within >ICANN responsibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitude: "the (fear of the) power (potentia) of the multitude is the limit of sovereign power (potestas)". I have proposed to experiment the reality of the multitude's capacity level as VGN, Host, site, access Masters through the HomeRoot (http://dnsa.org/index.php/TopZone) /SuperIANA (http://dnsa.org) /Happy-IP experimentation projects that start being documented under http://dnsa.org because the only thing all of us immediately share is the digital naming space aggregation. At 12:29 07/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote: >The purpose behind the Supporting Organizations had been to parse >ICANN stakeholders into mutually orthogonal groups but it is my >sense that this is proving awkward because the participants in the >ICANN processes have multiple interests that span multiple stakeholder groups. > >I continue to believe that the mechanisms are in place and can be >exercised to allow ICANN to provide stewardship for the IANA >functions and to adapt its own processes to make the >multistakeholder model work even better. Actually ICANN could consider SO as area and the BoD as the IESG, except there is no AIB. In my own experience the whole MS mechanism as translated from the USG (or other governement) suffers from being democratic and not polycratic. 1) an MS open process does not necessarily works as designed. There is a trust based attendance. Experienc in IUCG shows that IETF has specifically extended to informed users, but the debate has not taken off in the proposed manner (talks are bilateral, bilingual, segmented). 2) the MS processes as experienced for years by the ITU, USG, IETF, Europe, etc. are within a decentralized and not in a distributed framework. What is going to happen when there is a disagreement? A fork or fragmentation. The only solution in this case is a reconciliation emergence scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality_control). This is my objection to RFC 6852: they have not foreseen a common appeal scheme in case of cross SDO conflict, nor of dialog (IAB is in chage of liaisons) in case of users dissatisfaction. These are things the dnsa.org experimentation tries to explore. Everyone welcome to join the discussion list (but one do nos discuu jfc From nobody Mon Apr 7 08:12:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769FB1A07AA for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 08:12:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char C3 hex): Cc: Kleinw\303\244chter@jefsey.c[...] X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.631 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BsU531J3u59Q for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 08:12:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4D5C1A079E for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 08:11:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.159.233.116] (port=50377 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WXBD9-0007wQ-Ta; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:11:48 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:11:42 +0200 To: James Seng ,Vint Cerf From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164217E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/IQ3wFZt0CNIB3jiJnFmTziC_9xQ Cc: agora@dnsa.org, "iucg@ietf.org" , Kleinwächter@jefsey.com, Wolfgang , "Ianatransition@Icann. Org" Subject: Re: [iucg] [IANAtransition] MS model X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:12:06 -0000 At 14:16 07/04/2014, James Seng wrote: >For the first time at Singapore meeting, the Chinese delegates as a >whole are more open in their comments, if anyone cares to notice. >This is partly thanks to the effort of Fadi (and others) who has >been persuading the Chinese governments on the "multistakeholder" >concept and that such ideas are taken some foothold. > >So to correctly put it, the official position taken by Chinese @ >Singapore ICANN meeting is: >"The Chinese welcome the US NTIA Intents to transition key Internet >Domain Name functions" > >If you have read the other statements made by the Chinese delegates >(the officials one), and if you read behind the lines, they have >also more or less acknowledge the multistakeholder model and that >they are willing to work within the model to ensure its interest is been heard. This is an extremely good news. Thank you for bringing it. Now, upon your experience, why are they not participating so much to the IETF process you advocate? Has this to do with the process itself (Areas, BoF, charter, WG Chairmanship, multiplicty of RFCs, decision process, capacity of the leadership as for RFC 6852, appeal mechanism, etc.) or cultural as working by mail, in English, or more fundamentally the way they would concieve RFCs, etc. ? For example, in this debate which concerns something they approve, why are you, as a foreigner, the one who let us know it? What/How do you think we should adapt to ease the things for them and for us to benefit from their experience and point of view? jfc From nobody Mon Apr 7 17:22:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 931151A0852 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 17:22:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s9QAjB9hZvc6 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 17:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x230.google.com (mail-yk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B1C1A084D for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 17:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yk0-f176.google.com with SMTP id 19so178328ykq.35 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:22:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=GeRz1CcDHgcgtPU/pEzmGHRqHYBN9/2lqScWk6QiepE=; b=q7ER2B8Wmb8WA2CT4TEUKM1h9gAUZhx8KZOpbxfIq8uBaOrUZE/vXyaS/tdVeV0hzw Ei1uNGb8Ze75uTvPROu/d4tiV4Imp9i1ZnW0cXW6Zu8ViEc3ygKw3RNsdiKxloAJIr5j sl3AcFl4NRS0k+KLelBsgbdeuhTZZ8Ab5SZgPvQKN3W4fnMGCcN5Fvt42KMxqnd0FHrY EO2etHFR8wbQ1LgaynOPqOQJO3rodX1pqz/LUUwWt8AgcUNXfPl7zsfHatORn4kqppqG PsNWf1fbmeNHa6b1/nRU4NivdVTsRULCZUzR3+3YC5y0fMlEhQDHOHFs+fWwK3JtEcqt aW3Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.79.134 with SMTP id i6mr854246yhe.16.1396916532161; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:22:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.87.135 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 17:22:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5342a37d.6494700a.0b26.10f3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <20140326091244.818F921364D@smtp2.arin.net> <7F11B8A9-988A-4CC1-B6C9-C96D756E39B0@istaff.org> <20140326183653.DEFE721365F@smtp2.arin.net> <170128E5-F66A-4AC1-A2D7-FB759B5BB040@istaff.org> <5333541d.497eb40a.23db.ffffd191SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <0b6b01cf4950$7e00b2a0$7a0217e0$@gmail.com> <01f101cf49c7$26b242d0$7416c870$@gmail.com> <5337E9F5.9040005@cis-india.org> <53386E62.2010901@gmail.com> <533F17DC.3070803@cis-india.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20140404140312.0c246828@resistor.net> <50134989-9F60-4333-9281-90E89232D37E@virtualized.org> <533F396F.4090606@cis-india.org> <51501111-1F6C-4E70-8D59-2D006E1B5FBC@istaff.org> <5342281D.7020105@gmail.com> <5342a37d.6494700a.0b26.10f3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 01:22:12 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Jefsey Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30051044ae2fd804f67cf9f1 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/8Z0rOsQczYpXdim_oF-yGojDLh0 Cc: "agora@dnsa.org" , 1Net List , "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism? X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 00:22:24 -0000 --20cf30051044ae2fd804f67cf9f1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Monday, April 7, 2014, Jefsey wrote: > The problem we first face is to use at least 6 lists to discuss the same > thing under different but crossed perspectives. If we cannot fix it, it is > likely we will not be able to fix the NTIA removal issue! I don't want to fix, I want to change, I don't need to use others services, I want to make my own service. Those lists are just the beginning, the internet community/people within societies will make better opportunities. However, I like the lists' documentation and making history within our communication (even if we did not fix the problem this year, believe me it will be influenced through the future as long our discussions are true). > At 08:05 07/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote > >> People can't be responsible when governments fail even if the people >> elect the government. People/organisations cannot be responsible for >> ICANN's fail/success even if they were given time to propose, elect >> directors, direct, participate, or/and discuss the transition. This >> transition is mostly under NTIA responsibility, and will end within ICANN >> responsibility. >> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitude: "the (fear of the) power > (potentia) of the multitude is the limit of sovereign power (potestas)". I > have proposed to experiment the reality of the multitude's capacity level > as VGN, Host, site, access Masters through the HomeRoot ( > http://dnsa.org/index.php/TopZone) /SuperIANA (http://dnsa.org) /Happy-IP > experimentation projects that start being documented under http://dnsa.orgbecause the only thing all of us immediately share is the digital naming > space aggregation. I don't think multitude is a solution. It is not practical. Multitude has no contracts so it is random work and may have random output. We need agreements and procedures within communities for progress in input/output. We share more important things, which is looking for the best solution, and that continues work and changes spaces/environments/organisations. AB --20cf30051044ae2fd804f67cf9f1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Monday, April 7, 2014, Jefsey wrote:
The problem we first face is to use at least 6 lists to discuss the= same thing under different but crossed perspectives. If we cannot fix it, = it is likely we will not be able to fix the NTIA removal issue!

I don't want to fix, I want to change, I don't = need to use others services,=A0I want to make my own service. Those=A0lists= are just the beginning, the internet community/people within societies wil= l make better opportunities. However, I like the lists'=A0documentation= and making history within our communication (even if we did not fix the pr= oblem=A0this year,=A0believe me it will be=A0influenced through=A0the futur= e as long our discussions are true).=A0


At 08:05 07/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote
People can't be responsible when governments fail even if the people el= ect the government. People/organisations cannot be responsible for ICANN= 9;s fail/success even if they were given time to propose, elect directors, = direct, participate, or/and discuss the transition. This transition is most= ly under NTIA responsibility, and will end within ICANN responsibility.

http:/= /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitude: "the (fear of the) power = (potentia) of the multitude is the limit of sovereign power (potestas)"= ;. I have proposed to experiment the reality of the multitude's capacit= y level as VGN, Host, site, access Masters through the HomeRoot (http://dnsa.org/index= .php/TopZone) /SuperIANA (http://dnsa.org) /Happy-IP experimentation projects that start = being documented under http:/= /dnsa.org because the only thing all of us immediately share is the dig= ital naming space aggregation.

I don't think multitude is a solution. It is not pr= actical. Multitude has no contracts so it is random work and may have rando= m output.=A0=A0We need agreements and procedures=A0within communities for p= rogress in input/output.=A0

We share more important things, which is looking for th= e best solution, and that continues work=A0and changes spaces/environments/= organisations.=A0

AB
--20cf30051044ae2fd804f67cf9f1-- From nobody Mon Apr 7 19:04:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E941A004E for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 19:04:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.631 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w40owqDgpRZq for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 19:04:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE9B1A004D for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 19:04:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.159.233.116] (port=33849 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WXLOm-0000nd-MY; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:04:29 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 04:04:23 +0200 To: Abdussalam Baryun From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: References: <20140326091244.818F921364D@smtp2.arin.net> <7F11B8A9-988A-4CC1-B6C9-C96D756E39B0@istaff.org> <20140326183653.DEFE721365F@smtp2.arin.net> <170128E5-F66A-4AC1-A2D7-FB759B5BB040@istaff.org> <5333541d.497eb40a.23db.ffffd191SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <0b6b01cf4950$7e00b2a0$7a0217e0$@gmail.com> <01f101cf49c7$26b242d0$7416c870$@gmail.com> <5337E9F5.9040005@cis-india.org> <53386E62.2010901@gmail.com> <533F17DC.3070803@cis-india.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20140404140312.0c246828@resistor.net> <50134989-9F60-4333-9281-90E89232D37E@virtualized.org> <533F396F.4090606@cis-india.org> <51501111-1F6C-4E70-8D59-2D006E1B5FBC@istaff.org> <5342281D.7020105@gmail.com> <5342a37d.6494700a.0b26.10f3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/KtgpXA8QL4Mv9Twxp5gVURFONLg Cc: "agora@dnsa.org" , 1Net List , "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism? X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 02:04:39 -0000 At 02:22 08/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >I don't think multitude is a solution. Correct. This is the reality: how people from multitude organize is liberty. To do that they need to speak together and therefore to have languages and grammaries. IANA is TCP/IP's grammary. You can take advantage from it as "book", i.e. a site; or as a permanent teachin/use, i.e. as a protocol. This is only what I tell Olaf. jfc From nobody Tue Apr 8 02:37:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010E71A002D for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 18:49:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.745 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.745 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255, RCVD_IN_PSBL=2.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bjvTBF3xmfA9 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 18:49:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cis-india.org (mail.cis-india.org [202.190.125.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE711A0030 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 18:49:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.65] (172-0-8-35.lightspeed.wlfrct.sbcglobal.net [172.0.8.35]) by mail.cis-india.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F690A7C8BA; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 01:46:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5343558B.5050609@cis-india.org> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:48:59 -0400 From: Pranesh Prakash Organization: Centre for Internet and Society User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jefsey , James Seng , Vint Cerf References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164217E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <201404071512.s37FBoeY023890@pechora8.dc.icann.org> In-Reply-To: <201404071512.s37FBoeY023890@pechora8.dc.icann.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ewMTgKXMvhfWxHPw6gAnO124XUBj5hwA5" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/t4zzVO6hX1L-HW13dMlVTFIgNAk X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 02:37:17 -0700 Cc: agora@dnsa.org, "iucg@ietf.org" , "Ianatransition@Icann. Org" , =?UTF-8?B?V29sZmdhbmc=?= =?UTF-8?B?IEtsZWlud8OkY2h0ZXI=?= Subject: Re: [iucg] [IANAtransition] MS model X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 01:49:19 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --ewMTgKXMvhfWxHPw6gAnO124XUBj5hwA5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jefsey [2014-04-007 17:11:42 +0200]: > At 14:16 07/04/2014, James Seng wrote: >> For the first time at Singapore meeting, the Chinese delegates as a >> whole are more open in their comments, if anyone cares to notice. This= >> is partly thanks to the effort of Fadi (and others) who has been >> persuading the Chinese governments on the "multistakeholder" concept >> and that such ideas are taken some foothold.=C3=82 >> >> So to correctly put it, the official position taken by Chinese @ >> Singapore ICANN meeting is: >> "The Chinese welcome the US NTIA Intents to transition key Internet >> Domain Name functions" >> >> If you have read the other statements made by the Chinese delegates >> (the officials one), and if you read behind the lines, they have also >> more or less acknowledge the multistakeholder model and that they are >> willing to work within the model to ensure its interest is been heard.= > > This is an extremely good news. Thank you for bringing it. Now, upon > your experience, why are they not participating so much to the IETF > process you advocate? Has this to do with the process itself (Areas, > BoF, charter, WG Chairmanship, multiplicty of RFCs, decision process, > capacity of the leadership as for RFC 6852, appeal mechanism, etc.) or > cultural as working by mail, in English, or more fundamentally the way > they would concieve RFCs, etc. ? For example, in this debate which > concerns something they approve, why are you, as a foreigner, the one > who let us know it? What/How do you think we should adapt to ease the > things for them and for us to benefit from their experience and point o= f > view? These are extremely important questions, and I do hope some of the more=20 experienced people on this mailing list attempt some answers. If these aren't answered, we might as well agree that the "global=20 multistakeholder community" we're really talking about is the "North=20 American (and perhaps Western/Northern European) multistakeholder=20 community". ICANN has at least done some amount of surveying of where in the world=20 it receives WG involvement from. Have IETF/IESG ever done any such=20 analysis? Has ISOC ever done any such analysis? If so, could folks=20 please point to URLs? Thanks! --=20 Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org ------------------- Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash --ewMTgKXMvhfWxHPw6gAnO124XUBj5hwA5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTQ1WLAAoJEFUPonS5l6CpahYQAJo/mW84hj3VNvFV9a0DZsfq UK4aAjcyeLHOZ4u68pfeOI1XLPPu3E/6LFqF6rF/JutLukbVVwFXxCu3fIkA2c7+ 7VhlLJoCGjsnDtBi8L0xjBHc36VQ+55hq++QOHBcgF/0y4VLY2KGB0lI7f53iz8W YL1e4JONji/dkUkIy3d7wiYDiu/22VKdTnQwoeOFFMmNnXlS+mp5Oap/ZL65aZXb cOYIVH/fSbJLNFfBxssMgSxdKGSBh2h3deOUq9MotYxicoNA+gDNBJXpbM5bZYOy LJmyJuIsyZjZQRC8U1I6tZ9unZwXtHd3H+5lgLOtamXxFHlhjpXSUUSBp1gIl5bW 8fskR/+YNcC0ZUgwMaPcCrLbuZhEONAz9cv6K5EhzdqowSx4aIct+RJ3GH3s9LfU CEViKEmj+zJNopi5FB+EbJ9BbThFnDE+MKsNXlhFmOJ+LmWV609ZyF09S3isdfcL Z3/9t1GqmJNi3C94feaf9oG8KFtfb2A5qNnlyy8Due4CMjo2EVD3FSxjK+HXGwj1 xuF8dmCZn66b5DGBouo+kY9ZrFx53e1hOvN4JfatbJE4AZF/umYr63TcS1b+veZA 6/mlf16zqcj8CE0Ml8EcyYxPTRqNkEvHM8Fk3WTl+SNTvuTL0gnmo/flM4xzsV6E NcY1CUeOHBwcb3+PvQxM =u73Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ewMTgKXMvhfWxHPw6gAnO124XUBj5hwA5-- From nobody Mon Apr 14 01:16:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E17B51A0291 for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 01:16:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.832 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.832 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tjMfiSH9XMSj for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 01:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C54A21A0293 for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 01:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 47.211.130.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.130.211.47]:10259 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WZc3l-0005cw-Qm; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 01:16:10 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:44:07 +0200 To: Vint Cerf ,Michel Gauthier , Mike Roberts From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: References: <42c6e618a2d2489cb16c1b38cf1a961e@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <1C71E44A-059C-4E44-B202-E1C06DC63D1A@virtualized.org> <534af954.49620e0a.7752.5bd0SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <534b16fa.c3080e0a.3a68.0b27SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_46344433==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/ZPVOUxt3xjszPiqYTuS9Ah8wEFM Cc: "discuss@1net.org List" , ianatransition@icann.org, governance@lists.igcaucus.org, "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [iucg] [IANAtransition] Redlined Scoping Document X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:16:19 -0000 --=====================_46344433==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 01:45 14/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote: >Michel stop baiting. I did not say exclusively. I said these >technical ideas are in scope and therefore could be considered. Michel, Vint does not want to plainly respond to your good questions: however he eventually said "could" where you tested for "should". Mike Roberts has had the guts to answer: "So far, the responses on this list and elsewhere are not encouraging". Their and my common reason is simple: the NTIA question is biased and leads to an aporetic dilemma: "do you want the Internet to be American along our plan B or your plan C?" The reality is also very simple: the international catenet, under IETF logic or not, is our's. The question is to which kind of sovereignty does that "our's" resolve? Michael Gurstein is correct: the question of the NTIA is not only about the internet, but about the "internet world", i.e. our world, the world's governance, i.e. the world sovereignty. Let disambiguate the root of the question (keeping in mind that it is iterative, since it concerns a systemic evolution). 1. what is the internet? Why is it so much associated with the DNS? What is the internet we want? as long as we do not agree on these points discussions are futile. 2. from history and architectonical thinking does the Internet need sovereignty? 3. if yes which kind of sovereignty? legal, moral, technical, societal, geographical, cultural, ethical, military, securitary, economical, etc. 4. which kind of apparatus does that sovereignty needs? imperial, aristocratic, diktyocratic, democratic, polycratic, by stake owners, status holders, stakeholders, multitude, people. What is the commonly accepted meaning of each of these terms? 5. what is the best common interest in a closed global system of interests as now is the internet, where only win/win or lose/lose situations are possible. Then and only then, - one can discuss the questions posed by the NTIA: is the world sovereignty to be localized (i.e. to some specific State [USA], to Nation-States [as UN or ITU outside of US control, or GAC embedded in an US registered ICANN?]). - one can know how to follow the ICANN position which is (current Internet Coordination Policy # 3) which does not mention NTIA and calls for experimentation: "ICANN's mandate to preserve stability of the DNS [...] means that ICANN continues to adhere to community-based processes in its decisions regarding the content of the authoritative root. Within its current policy framework, ICANN can give no preference to those who choose to work outside of these processes and outside of the policies engendered by this public trust. None of this precludes experimentation done in a manner that does not threaten the stability of name resolution in the authoritative DNS. Responsible experimentation is essential to the vitality of the Internet. Nor does it preclude the ultimate introduction of new architectures that may ultimately obviate the need for a unique, authoritative root. But the translation of experiments into production and the introduction of new architectures require community-based approaches, and are not compatible with individual efforts to gain proprietary advantage." At this stage, the NTIA aporetic proposition is an "individual effort to gain proprietary advantage" to say the least. jfc >On Apr 13, 2014 7:00 PM, "Michel Gauthier" ><mg@telepresse.com> wrote: >At 23:48 13/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote: >>part of the process initiated by ICANN has the scope to look at >>additional technical safeg uards to limit the actions of IANA and >>the TLD operators to those actions both agree to. >Dear Vint, >I just want to be sure I do not misunderstand you, because this is >very important to everyone. >You mean that you consider that the ICANN scope is the ***only*** >set of actions that is to be undertaken, with no additional >experimentation if not within the limits aproved by ICANN. Noother >backup option to be experimented. The internet users are to 100% >rely upon and to 100% trust ICANN. In other words that your entire >internet project is now to ***limit*** itself to the ICANN scope and >its internal safeguards? >This in spite of the ICANN/ICP-3 own recommendations? >What if NTIA disapproves ICANN? >M G > > > > >>v >> >> >>On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Michel Gauthier >><mg@telepresse.com> wrote: >>Dear Vint, >>Thank you to reminding us that no one has ***ever*** changed a >>national or international communication system without being >>"sponsored" by a soverign authority (USG [FCC or NTIA] or >>monopolies): Mokapetris and Postel have not introduced any change >>in the file they received.. >>So, now you state: "it is possible to fashion sufficient >>accountability and transparency mechanisms as well as additional >>interlocks on root zone changes to eliminate the need for an >>institutional replacement for NTIA's oversight". Don't you think it >>isĂ‚Â a big responsibility? Without any experimentation for the >>mechanism you only guarantee the possibility. >>What do you think of those who want at least to experiment a back-up? >>M G >>At 21:09 13/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>Seun, >>>there are two separations in the present situation: NTIA as >>>contract holder and ICANN as contractor and the further >>>segregation of IANA as a distinct entity within the ICANN >>>framework. IANA is isolated from the production of policy although >>>i has to follow and execute policies developed in the ICANN >>>process and that are relevant to the IANA responsibilities. One >>>question on the table is whether the IANA functions require the >>>kind of NTIA oversight that has been in place since 1998. I would >>>recall that Jon Postel was largely left to his own resources >>>during his tenure (i.e. the USG did not intervene until he tested >>>the change from one master root zone server to another that >>>triggered a WH reaction). Jon was, of course, a key player within >>>the Internet development community and guided by and trusted by >>>his contemporaries. As many on these lists know, I believe it is >>>possible to fashion sufficient accountability and transparency >>>mechanisms as well as additional interlocks on root zone changes >>>to eliminate the need for an institutional replacement for NTIA's >>>oversight.Ă„€ >>>I appreciate your efforts to try to keep the discussion moving in >>>constructive directions. >>>vint >>>On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Seun Ojedeji >>><seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > wrote: >>>Hello Milton, >>>On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Milton L Mueller >>><mueller@syr.edu> wrote: >>> >>> > As Chip Sharp points out, there is a contractual requirement >>> for IANA staff to not >>> > be involved in policy development (other than to respond to >>> questions), but that >>> > is different than requiring the IANA Functions operator to be >>> separated from ICANN. >>>OK, so you want to play semantic games. Look, everyone involved in >>>this discussion has noted multiple times that ICANN currently has >>>_functional_ separation, via C.2.5 and other requirements. Once >>>that contractual requirement is gone, the issue is how is that >>>separation maintained. Many Ă„€ believe structural separation will >>>be requuired. This was a point made in our original paper back on >>>March 3. Thanks for advancing the debate. >>> >>>What is functional and structural separation within the context of >>>this discussion?. I understand that by contract the IANA function >>>itself requires a separation on its own. The fact that it has a >>>separate department dedicated to it, make it a structural >>>separation within ICANN. I don't think structuring should always >>>have to do with setting up something outside of existing >>>organisation. (as i have always pointed out since the IGP proposal >>>was released) >>>So you have pointed out the right issue; which is to discuss "how >>>to maintain the current separation" (that is already structural >>>and functional) >>>Nevertheless as usual, i am open to be convinced on what aspect i >>>may have missed. ;) >>>Thanks >>>Regards >>>_______________________________________________ >>>ianatransition mailing list >>>ianatransition@icann.org >>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition >>-- >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>Seun Ojedeji, >>Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>web:Ă„€Ă‚ Ä€Ă‚ ÄâĀ >>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>Mobile: +2348035233535 >>alt email: >>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ianatransition mailing list >>ianatransition@icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition >>_______________________________________________ >>ianatransition mailing list >>ianatransition@icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition >_______________________________________________ >ianatransition mailing list >ianatransition@icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition --=====================_46344433==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 01:45 14/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote:
Michel stop baiting. I did not say exclusively. I said these technical ideas are in scope and therefore could be considered.

Michel,

Vint does not want to plainly respond to your good questions: however he eventually said "could" where you tested for "should". Mike Roberts has had the guts to answer: "So far, the responses on this list and elsewhere are not encouraging". Their and my common reason is simple: the NTIA question is biased and leads to an aporetic dilemma: "do you want the Internet to be American along our plan B or your plan C?"

The reality is also very simple: the international catenet, under IETF logic or not, is our's. The question is to which kind of sovereignty does that "our's" resolve? Michael Gurstein is correct: the question of the NTIA is not only about the internet, but about the "internet world", i.e. our world, the world's governance, i.e. the world sovereignty.

Let disambiguate the root of the question (keeping in mind that it is iterative, since it concerns a systemic evolution).

1. what is the internet? Why is it so much associated with the DNS? What is the internet we want? as long as we do not agree on these points discussions are futile.
2. from history and architectonical thinking does the Internet need sovereignty?
3. if yes which kind of sovereignty? legal, moral, technical, societal, geographical, cultural, ethical, military, securitary, economical, etc.
4. which kind of apparatus does that sovereignty needs? imperial, aristocratic, diktyocratic, democratic, polycratic, by stake owners, status holders, stakeholders, multitude, people. What is the commonly accepted meaning of each of these terms?
5. what is the best common interest in a closed global system of interests as now is the internet, where only win/win or lose/lose situations are possible.

Then and only then,
- one can discuss the questions posed by the NTIA: is the world sovereignty to be localized (i.e. to some specific State [USA], to Nation-States [as UN or ITU outside of US control, or GAC embedded in an US registered ICANN?]).
- one can know how to follow the ICANN position which is (current Internet Coordination Policy # 3) which does not mention NTIA and calls for experimentation:

"ICANN's mandate to preserve stability of the DNS [...] means that ICANN continues to adhere to community-based processes in its decisions regarding the content of the authoritative root. Within its current policy framework, ICANN can give no preference to those who choose to work outside of these processes and outside of the policies engendered by this public trust.  None of this precludes experimentation done in a manner that does not threaten the stability of name resolution in the authoritative DNS. Responsible experimentation is essential to the vitality of the Internet. Nor does it preclude the ultimate introduction of new architectures that may ultimately obviate the need for a unique, authoritative root. But the translation of experiments into production and the introduction of new architectures require community-based approaches, and are not compatible with individual efforts to gain proprietary advantage."

At this stage, the NTIA aporetic proposition is an "individual effort to gain proprietary advantage" to say the least.

jfc


On Apr 13, 2014 7:00 PM, "Michel Gauthier" <mg@telepresse.com> wrote:
At 23:48 13/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote:
part of the process initiated by ICANN has the scope to look at additional technical safeg uards to limit the actions of IANA and the TLD operators to those actions both agree to.
Dear Vint,
I just want to be sure I do not misunderstand you, because this is very important to everyone.
You mean that you consider that the ICANN scope is the ***only*** set of actions that is to be undertaken, with no additional experimentation if not within the limits aproved by ICANN. Noother backup option to be experimented. The internet users are to 100% rely upon and to 100% trust ICANN. In other words that your entire internet project is now to ***limit*** itself to the ICANN scope and its internal safeguards?
This in spite of the ICANN/ICP-3 own recommendations?
What if NTIA disapproves ICANN?
M G




v


On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Michel Gauthier <mg@telepresse.com> wrote:
Dear Vint,
Thank you to reminding us that no one has ***ever*** changed a national or international communication system without being "sponsored" by a soverign authority (USG [FCC or NTIA] or monopolies): Mokapetris and Postel have not introduced any change in the file they received..
So, now you state: "it is possible to fashion sufficient accountability and transparency mechanisms as well as additional interlocks on root zone changes to eliminate the need for an institutional replacement for NTIA's oversight". Don't you think it is  a big responsibility? Without any experimentation for the mechanism you only guarantee the possibility.
What do you think of those who want at least to experiment a back-up?
M G
At 21:09 13/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote:
Seun,
there are two separations in the present situation: NTIA as contract holder and ICANN as contractor and the further segregation of IANA as a distinct entity within the ICANN framework. IANA is isolated from the production of policy although i has to follow and execute policies developed in the ICANN process and that are relevant to the IANA responsibilities. One question on the table is whether the IANA functions require the kind of NTIA oversight that has been in place since 1998. I would recall that Jon Postel was largely left to his own resources during his tenure (i.e. the USG did not intervene until he tested the change from one master root zone server to another that triggered a WH reaction). Jon was, of course, a key player within the Internet development community and guided by and trusted by his contemporaries. As many on these lists know, I believe it is possible to fashion sufficient accountability and transparency mechanisms as well as additional interlocks on root zone changes to eliminate the need for an institutional replacement for NTIA's oversight.Ă„€
I appreciate your efforts to try to keep the discussion moving in constructive directions.
vint
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > wrote:
Hello Milton,
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

> As Chip Sharp points out, there is a contractual requirement for IANA staff to not
> be involved in policy development (other than to respond to questions), but that
> is different than requiring the IANA Functions operator to be separated from ICANN.
OK, so you want to play semantic games. Look, everyone involved in this discussion has noted multiple times that ICANN currently has _functional_ separation, via C.2.5 and other requirements. Once that contractual requirement is gone, the issue is how is that separation maintained. Many Ă„€ believe structural separation will be requuired. This was a point made in our original paper back on March 3. Thanks for advancing the debate.

What is functional and structural separation within the context of this discussion?. I understand that by contract the IANA function itself requires a separation on its own. The fact that it has a separate department dedicated to it, make it a structural separation within ICANN. I don't think structuring should always have to do with setting up something outside of existing organisation. (as i have always pointed out since the IGP proposal was released)
So you have pointed out the right issue; which is to discuss "how to maintain the current separation" (that is already structural and functional)
Nevertheless as usual, i am open to be convinced on what aspect i may have missed. ;)
Thanks
Regards
_______________________________________________
ianatransition mailing list
ianatransition@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:Ă„€Ă‚  Ă„€Ă‚  Ă„âĀ  http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng




_______________________________________________
ianatransition mailing list
ianatransition@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
_______________________________________________
ianatransition mailing list
ianatransition@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
_______________________________________________
ianatransition mailing list
ianatransition@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
--=====================_46344433==.ALT-- From nobody Tue Apr 15 02:14:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF7B1A0295 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:14:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.531 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, BAYES_999=0.2, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V6g9UTcDvkYA for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1531A0293 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 47.211.130.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.130.211.47]:39634 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WZzRD-0004aN-QG; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:13:56 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:13:50 +0200 To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" , 1Net List , "governance@lists.igcaucus.org" From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: <534C867D.9030203@cafonso.ca> References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77DAFC7C@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> <534C867D.9030203@cafonso.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/olUZHZgHRIMs6UTqImUbrVgwjm8 Cc: agora@dnsa.org, "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [iucg] [governance] Re: [Marcocivil] RES: NetMundial Draft Outcome document Online for comments at the platform X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:14:01 -0000 At 03:08 15/04/2014, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > unfragmented, Dear Carlos, the internet is fragmented at missing layer six. This results in the RFC 6852 "global communities" of which the economy is now to direct the standardization evolution. This fragmentation is dependent on the mobile OS environment. It is not yet at the parameter plane but this what all this is about. The whole lobbying we are submitted to comes from this: the edge providers (Google, Apple, Microsoft ...) want to get rid of the single NTIA oversight. The internet is now growing as the addition of the global community networks (edge MS) of the network of networks opposing through a fragmented "de facto standardisation" the emergence of general personal (multitude's MS) virtual networking of the networks of networks. Please read RFC 6852. The qui-pro-quo is to societally engineer this new status-quo as being supposedly desired by the Civil Society (i.e. consumers). Brazil is a key spot for this tug of war as Europe is sleeping and US is already conquered. It has the Marco Civil and the engineering capacity to oppose fragmentation through open source. The brillant move is to diverted attention from the technical dividing to a political bog, so everyone's focus will be on the wrong spot until a de facto consensus of usage has settled the technical fragmentation, which in turn will induce the community fragmentation, and eventually the parameter fragmentation that will stabilize the market share new status-quo through the growth of goodwill "bridges". This is why the only way to oppose that now leading trend is to rebuild the internet from its WSIS indentified core: the person, its digital use, its digital resources optimization, from home to the global world, on an open Libre basis to get rid of the commercial money of the edge oligopoles. As a Brazilian Civil Society leader your role is not negligible in that uncertain situation. jfc From jeanchristophe.nothias@gmail.com Tue Apr 15 02:23:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C871A0537 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:23:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8CX09LVJVc7f for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F551A029C for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id y10so9117077wgg.1 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:23:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=PtDc05JoNdR7KcKJ+ijnaTq4EEeWOA9wfTH9ZWSiQTE=; b=Du5IHN2a5ES3kVoGBay9TFcjIWbh7pVQHGiDWu1Pn6JiPt0OmDrvULLuxBJIv/L0q5 Fb2t4zy+jEvV2FRpjKFQ7VPbEFxvGgj688G0N671f7ix2kdtRcSxTCjp9eF58aJC7wuh RYJ5UHukU7I46nAtb+P3y22wxbksltJxdoo9wvrDlni9GeG8bgEqUvTp+0hOD38H8Qp1 j0N7Q4hRou4wkR4JkeQov+t88GupOcDjWb7bGuqDySLpfeJqnfPjt3PkwO2sV7yCwJYu t/JW/jYnnTbg4D1jj9wzAPvIj8Wx/tnjBdrniLQpRiRla3NkvBRUpPL9ZT3P7fVMfehe dBNA== X-Received: by 10.194.9.8 with SMTP id v8mr594908wja.53.1397553802156; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.41] (i15-lef02-th2-89-83-250-94.ft.lns.abo.bbox.fr. [89.83.250.94]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dg7sm28899740wjc.4.2014.04.15.02.23.20 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Jean-Christophe Nothias In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:23:18 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <73727EF5-87F6-4ED9-9489-AD6CE96C530F@gmail.com> References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77DAFC7C@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> <534C867D.9030203@cafonso.ca> To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org, Jefsey X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/UQdrnWKQSV-Pl6Ue5NMZ6_mMq3U X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:19:52 -0700 Cc: agora@dnsa.org, "Carlos A. Afonso" , 1Net List , "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [iucg] [governance] Re: [Marcocivil] RES: NetMundial Draft Outcome document Online for comments at the platform X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:33:50 -0000 +1 Le 15 avr. 2014 =E0 11:13, Jefsey a =E9crit : > At 03:08 15/04/2014, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> unfragmented, >=20 > Dear Carlos, >=20 > the internet is fragmented at missing layer six. This results in the = RFC 6852 "global communities" of which the economy is now to direct the = standardization evolution. This fragmentation is dependent on the mobile = OS environment. It is not yet at the parameter plane but this what all = this is about. >=20 > The whole lobbying we are submitted to comes from this: the edge = providers (Google, Apple, Microsoft ...) want to get rid of the single = NTIA oversight. The internet is now growing as the addition of the = global community networks (edge MS) of the network of networks opposing = through a fragmented "de facto standardisation" the emergence of general = personal (multitude's MS) virtual networking of the networks of = networks. Please read RFC 6852. >=20 > The qui-pro-quo is to societally engineer this new status-quo as being = supposedly desired by the Civil Society (i.e. consumers). Brazil is a = key spot for this tug of war as Europe is sleeping and US is already = conquered. It has the Marco Civil and the engineering capacity to oppose = fragmentation through open source. The brillant move is to diverted = attention from the technical dividing to a political bog, so everyone's = focus will be on the wrong spot until a de facto consensus of usage has = settled the technical fragmentation, which in turn will induce the = community fragmentation, and eventually the parameter fragmentation that = will stabilize the market share new status-quo through the growth of = goodwill "bridges". >=20 > This is why the only way to oppose that now leading trend is to = rebuild the internet from its WSIS indentified core: the person, its = digital use, its digital resources optimization, from home to the global = world, on an open Libre basis to get rid of the commercial money of the = edge oligopoles. >=20 > As a Brazilian Civil Society leader your role is not negligible in = that uncertain situation. >=20 > jfc >=20 >=20 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance@lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >=20 > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >=20 > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nobody Thu Apr 17 04:10:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 008181A0090 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 04:10:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.632 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0S7AYbeO4_fI for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 04:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7EF01A004A for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 04:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 47.211.130.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.130.211.47]:34456 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WakCz-0001DU-Sk; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 04:10:22 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:10:15 +0200 To: Jay Daley From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <5A9BEDD3-7296-4E66-8DED-CCCAE766AE53@nzrs.net.nz> References: <57B795BD-4293-4682-A981-920B42A2DA3A@nzrs.net.nz> <21326.53855.776843.672534@world.std.com> <5A9BEDD3-7296-4E66-8DED-CCCAE766AE53@nzrs.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_315998090==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/EYiHttcj6sgXsT9QLFs9v5basT4 Cc: "discuss@1net.org List" , IANAFunctions@ntia.doc.gov, Larry Strickling , "ianatransition@icann.org" , "iucg@ietf.org" , "info@vgnic.org" Subject: Re: [iucg] [IANAtransition] Troll X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:10:38 -0000 --=====================_315998090==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Dear Jay, I understand what you intended to do and why. This was impolite, but no offense has been taken. I have no problem in repeating you that I am one of the IG co-founder of telepresse.com, and I suggest you better read our 16 years old site. I regret the lame response of Greg "I did not insult you: this was the quote I chose". I am impatient to see the result of George's promise of handling an MS process as a kindergarten on behalf of free speach. I know you know I have trapped you in clarifying the whole NTIA removal process. It could have been anyone not knowing me. I did it for the very reason you gave: "without the serious disruption of the [ICANN's aficionados] most of us would have much more time to consider the other thoughts offered and there would considerable free bandwidth for new people to fill." Let us try to consider these things neutrally and seriously. 1. the USG (through FCC and NTIA) has supervised the whole international network deployment process for 37 years. 2. the NTIA has announced its removal from this supervision in very ambiguous terms. 3. in asking ICANN to organize a transition toward a new governance where leadership will not be exercised the way the world chose in Dubai. This is, therefore, a delicate task that should ascertain whether ICANN succeeds in convincing the world and, therefore, the NTIA. One can easily imagine that the NTIA's successor will face a complex political context and must be designed to manage it. The test that the NTIA has foreseen is to see if ICANN, before contemplating managing a transition, and possibly assuming a succession, is able to facilitate the MS process that will devise its proposition to the world. You have shown that it has for the time being definitely failed that test. Why? ICANN has chosen to prepare this process in using this mailing list. This mailing list is, therefore, part of an MS management process as perceived and facilitated by ICANN. We are cooperating stakeholders. There are on the list a large number of ICANN supporters. Some others are not, but accept or watch ICANN. I am neither because I think that the mere concept of ICANN is a BUG (in being designed to Be Unilaterally Global). Up to now, that BUG was patched by the NTIA supervision (1) which artificially centralized a distributed network (2) making ICANN once deprived from the NTIA functionally unable to sustain my stakes of VGN Master. This additionally comes at a time (perhaps the reason why the NTIA disengages) when the network of networks will suffer from its ongoing transformation into the networks (VGNs) of the networks (technologies) of networks (bandwidth), documented by the I*Stakeholders OpenStand RFC 6852. So, I patiently tried to explain, because I am one the concerned stakeholders who will suffer from the resulting IG deficit: 1. That the internet that this list discusses is a 1978 project the first part of which went well, and the second part is not completed but it can be achieved outside of the IETF (since it must interface multiple technologies outside of the IETF scope and mission [RFC 3935]) 2. that this multitechnology second part is outdated by the RFC 6852 economic standardization paradigm and has to be reviewed before being able match the current evolutions. 3. how this should be explored in cooperation, along the ICANN policy and toward its described possibilities or others. The response you bring, supported by an ICANN Board Member, "I call for/we need a procedure to impeach such behavior" (this is my reading) only shows that: 1. you and ICANN have not understood what an MS mechanism of discussion and decision is and want to prevent stakeholder from defending their interests. 2. you and ICANN are not able to consider an evolution of its 1998 digital context, which may raise suspicions regarding 2015 and further on. 3. ICANN has chosen to manage its first enhanced MS case I a way that would be disrupted by the decent contributions of a non-obedient stakeholder. If the ICANN MS process system is not able to manage me, how will they deal with China, Russia, or North Korea? You will note that you did not have much time to wait: the yesterday European evaluation is a direct response to your mail. Now, understand that I am more vocal than my fellow internet informed individual users because I have sort of overseen this question, in development (until 1986) and further on in adversity, for decades. What is happening right now is just the result of the seeds of the late 1970s decade and I think that the NTIA and you have closed that chapter. I hoped ICANN and a completed OpenStand could make the US VGN cooperate with the emergence of billions of VGNs. This will happen, but not with this ICANN. I am afraid that George Sadowsky's response and the lack of a contribution of Steve Crocker and Vint Cerf mean that the ICANN framework is obsolete. I do not know what the NTIA will decide: I think most of the rest of the world and I will stay friendly because there is no reason to shoot at the ambulance and most have already turned the page. I was probably the last one to actively preach for a feasible technical, political and societal realistic continuity. You turned me wrong: a change is necessary. OpenStand has started it. You have settled it. Thank you. What is coming will be to the IG what the IG is to the ITU. As individual, local, national VGN Masters, the time has come to definitely dedicate our effort toward a "fail-secure plan" for our networks. If ICANN wants to talk with us, they can discuss it with Europe first. We elected them and we pay taxes for that, they start doing a good job, TTIP is coming, and the US Telecom Act is to be seriously adjusted to the world's demand and the net neutrality. We cannot hope to trust ICANN to keep the internet lead anymore. It is too difficult for their formula. Sorry and Thanks. jfc, At 22:09 16/04/2014, Jay Daley wrote: >Hi Barry > >On 17/04/2014, at 6:56 am, Barry Shein wrote: > > > I find some of the so-called "troll" posts interesting and a sincere > > attempt to present a sometimes very different view of these issues. > > > > I was confused when I saw the initial troll complaint and had to pay > > close attention to figure out who or what was being referenced. > >I was reasonably clear to couch my email as a question to see who >else felt that way and it is clear that not everyone does. > > > > > I would really like some explanation of how these posts were hostile > > or purposely counter-productive rather than just, for some, different. > >I did not suggest that they were either hostile or purposely >counter-productive. > > > Lacking that my gut tells me this is mostly a "get with the program or > > get out" sort of complaint. > >Quite the opposite. Two reasons for that - the first is the most >obvious, that the position on structural separation I have been >taking is quite clearly "not with the program" and the second is >that without the serious disruption of the troll most of us would >have much more time to consider the other thoughts offered and there >would considerable free bandwidth for new people to fill. > > > Admittedly the volume on these lists is a little high, and my post > > isn't improving that, but other than that I can't imagine why just > > ignoring one poster, if that's your desire, doesn't suffice. > >That's certainly the strategy I have pursued but not everyone >follows that and so otherwise useful threads descend into nonsense >and valuable interactions are spoiled. > >One question - would you feel any different about this if someone, >hypothetically of course, were posting to a list using multiple >identities in order to create a conversation where none existed otherwise? > >Jay > > > > > > > -- > > -Barry Shein > > > > The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | > http://www.TheWorld.com > > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: > US, PR, Canada > > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* > > >-- >Jay Daley >Chief Executive >.nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) >desk: +64 4 931 6977 >mobile: +64 21 678840 >linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley > >_______________________________________________ >ianatransition mailing list >ianatransition@icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition --=====================_315998090==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Dear Jay,

I understand what you intended to do and why. This was impolite, but no offense has been taken. I have no problem in repeating you that I am one of the IG co-founder of telepresse.com, and I suggest you better read our 16 years old site. I regret the lame response of Greg “I did not insult you: this was the quote I chose”. I am impatient to see the result of George’s promise of handling an MS process as a kindergarten on behalf of free speach.

I know you know I have trapped you in clarifying the whole NTIA removal process. It could have been anyone not knowing me. I did it for the very reason you gave: "without the serious disruption of the [ICANN’s aficionados] most of us would have much more time to consider the other thoughts offered and there would considerable free bandwidth for new people to fill."

Let us try to consider these things neutrally and seriously.

1. the USG (through FCC and NTIA) has supervised the whole international network deployment process for 37 years.
2. the NTIA has announced its removal from this supervision in very ambiguous terms.
3. in asking ICANN to organize a transition toward a new governance where leadership will not be exercised the way the world chose in Dubai. This is, therefore, a delicate task that should ascertain whether ICANN succeeds in convincing the world and, therefore, the NTIA.

One can easily imagine that the NTIA's successor will face a complex political context and must be designed to manage it. The test that the NTIA has foreseen is to see if ICANN, before contemplating managing a transition, and possibly assuming a succession, is able to facilitate the MS process that will devise its proposition to the world.

You have shown that it has for the time being definitely failed that test. Why?

ICANN has chosen to prepare this process in using this mailing list. This mailing list is, therefore, part of an MS management process as perceived and facilitated by ICANN. We are cooperating stakeholders. There are on the list a large number of ICANN supporters. Some others are not, but accept or watch ICANN. I am neither because I think that the mere concept of ICANN is a BUG (in being designed to Be Unilaterally Global). Up to now, that BUG was patched by the NTIA supervision (1) which artificially centralized a distributed network (2) making ICANN once deprived from the NTIA functionally unable to sustain my stakes of VGN Master. This additionally comes at a time (perhaps the reason why the NTIA disengages) when the network of networks will suffer from its ongoing transformation into the networks (VGNs) of the networks (technologies) of networks (bandwidth), documented by the I*Stakeholders OpenStand RFC 6852.

So, I patiently tried to explain, because I am one the concerned stakeholders who will suffer from the resulting IG deficit:

1. That the internet that this list discusses is a 1978 project the first part of which went well, and the second part is not completed but it can be achieved outside of the IETF (since it must interface multiple technologies outside of the IETF scope and mission [RFC 3935])
2. that this multitechnology second part is outdated by the RFC 6852 economic standardization paradigm and has to be reviewed before being able match the current evolutions.
3. how this should be explored in cooperation, along the ICANN policy and toward its described possibilities or others.

The response you bring, supported by an ICANN Board Member, "I call for/we need a procedure to impeach such behavior" (this is my reading) only shows that:

1. you and ICANN have not understood what an MS mechanism of discussion and decision is and want to prevent stakeholder from defending their interests.
2. you and ICANN are not able to consider an evolution of its 1998 digital context, which may raise suspicions regarding 2015 and further on.
3. ICANN has chosen to manage its first enhanced MS case I a way that would be disrupted by the decent contributions of a non-obedient stakeholder. If the ICANN MS process system is not able to manage me, how will they deal with China, Russia, or North Korea?

You will note that you did not have much time to wait: the yesterday European evaluation is a direct response to your mail. Now, understand that I am more vocal than my fellow internet informed individual users because I have sort of overseen this question, in development (until 1986) and further on in adversity, for decades. What is happening right now is just the result of the seeds of the late 1970s decade and I think that the NTIA and you have closed that chapter. I hoped ICANN and a completed OpenStand could make the US VGN cooperate with the emergence of billions of VGNs. This will happen, but not with this ICANN.

I am afraid that George Sadowsky's response and the lack of a contribution of Steve Crocker and Vint Cerf mean that the ICANN framework is obsolete. I do not know what the NTIA will decide: I think most of the rest of the world and I will stay friendly because there is no reason to shoot at the ambulance and most have already turned the page. I was probably the last one to actively preach for a feasible technical, political and societal realistic continuity. You turned me wrong: a change is necessary. OpenStand has started it. You have settled it. Thank you. What is coming will be to the IG what the IG is to the ITU.
 

As individual, local, national VGN Masters, the time has come to definitely dedicate our effort toward a "fail-secure plan" for our networks. If ICANN wants to talk with us, they can discuss it with Europe first. We elected them and we pay taxes for that, they start doing a good job, TTIP is coming, and the US Telecom Act is to be seriously adjusted to the world’s demand and the net neutrality.

We cannot hope to trust ICANN to keep the internet lead anymore. It is too difficult for their formula.

Sorry and Thanks.

jfc,

At 22:09 16/04/2014, Jay Daley wrote:
Hi Barry

On 17/04/2014, at 6:56 am, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:

> I find some of the so-called "troll" posts interesting and a sincere
> attempt to present a sometimes very different view of these issues.
>
> I was confused when I saw the initial troll complaint and had to pay
> close attention to figure out who or what was being referenced.

I was reasonably clear to couch my email as a question to see who else felt that way and it is clear that not everyone does.

>
> I would really like some explanation of how these posts were hostile
> or purposely counter-productive rather than just, for some, different.

I did not suggest that they were either hostile or purposely counter-productive.

> Lacking that my gut tells me this is mostly a "get with the program or
> get out" sort of complaint.

Quite the opposite.   Two reasons for that - the first is the most obvious, that the position on structural separation I have been taking is quite clearly "not with the program" and the second is that without the serious disruption of the troll most of us would have much more time to consider the other thoughts offered and there would considerable free bandwidth for new people to fill.

> Admittedly the volume on these lists is a little high, and my post
> isn't improving that, but other than that I can't imagine why just
> ignoring one poster, if that's your desire, doesn't suffice.

That's certainly the strategy I have pursued but not everyone follows that and so otherwise useful threads descend into nonsense and valuable interactions are spoiled. 

One question - would you feel any different about this if someone, hypothetically of course, were posting to a list using multiple identities in order to create a conversation where none existed otherwise?

Jay

>
>
> --
>        -Barry Shein
>
> The World              | bzs@TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
> Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*


--
Jay Daley
Chief Executive
.nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited)
desk: +64 4 931 6977
mobile: +64 21 678840
linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley

_______________________________________________
ianatransition mailing list
ianatransition@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
--=====================_315998090==.ALT-- From nobody Sat Apr 19 10:35:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF27F1A004C for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 10:27:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.215 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.215 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Ir1EWp7dQ3k for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 10:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x233.google.com (mail-qc0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DCA61A0041 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 10:27:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id m20so2701721qcx.38 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 10:27:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=OhRHCRGmKtDXVzghliLdhzZktmP0wYFfadcnRsczBF8=; b=iXuwtYcI9K57I1hOhiiuEbBQA0WKIhVqzCR+e5/JuOvZILLX08zx2okflrYfX0oGFc VkYujooUzA6S8ydk60qqEWBmkHLdJtS7DZkusSm4anhe19eFA6+It1ZqTSjoZUEPzJ2A JEelxRSRfRQvIlPu16UBL7Z+sH5ZeWzoDplQLxFfzKPckTGrSTU4ELqr+yf0vgP3izch ez+vNQkGJiezrB0BY7kKfeF7GTkFnbUzxsWS119fhUc+GToNGR30zQr9gRMK9DdqBXme qh79QSBAJ7bBT34nKuurroPBZ8nq3OnR/W7S+gl2QRxv2T0/ThmoE9cdBs7UhbJg5Doh hueA== X-Received: by 10.140.81.227 with SMTP id f90mr2639442qgd.110.1397928423598; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 10:27:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.116.80 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 10:26:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201404191656.s3JGucdr017013@pechora1.lax.icann.org> References: <201404191656.s3JGucdr017013@pechora1.lax.icann.org> From: Seun Ojedeji Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 18:26:33 +0100 Message-ID: To: FSP4NET Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c12d641c523304f7689366 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/dZplLyKRV1RAzdjMXJ8E6pyFkqM X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 10:35:03 -0700 Cc: 1net , info@intgovforum.icann.org, Larry Strickling , "Ianatransition@Icann. Org" , IUCG@ietf.org, agora@dnsa.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [IANAtransition] VGN dynamic coalition and enhanced cooperation X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:27:16 -0000 --001a11c12d641c523304f7689366 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am quite puzzled here, how can a call to be transparent results to voluntary withdrawal, is that confirmation of the perceived?. Perhaps it may be good to know the composition of the "we", what are the attitude referred and who are members of the Multitude? Cheers! On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 5:56 PM, FSP4NET wrote: > > The attitude of several of the participants in the ICANN governance of th= e > Sao Paulo/"NTIAtransition" process mailing lists in regards to our > stakeholder's needs and against the members of the Multitude we are has > demonstrated the practical inability of this process to adapt to the > reality of the 2014 network use and of what should be an Open > Multi-Stakeholder process and cooperation. > > This calls for some additional structural adaptation from people > characterized by their self-determination in front of the ICANN rigidity = in > order to see the diversity of needs of their architecture of internet use > securely addressed and protected. > > We have, therefore, resolved: > > 1. to terminate our individual participation in the "/1NET" and > "IANAtransition" processes. > > 2. to convene a co-opted dynamic coalition for a fail-secure plan for > virtual global networks by the name and collective signature of "FSP4NET" > and of "NETORSEC" in the French language. > > 3. to assign to this dynamic coalition the management of an enhanced > coalition for a development executed in cooperation between the Libre, > institutional, and competitive sector (DECLIC, http://dnsa.org/index.php/ > DECLIC) of the VGN fail-secure "HomeRoot", "SuperIANA", "Happy-IP", etc. > works, documentation, development, and experimentation projects. > > 4. to collectively dialogue on the /1NET, IANAtransition, and other > mailing lists and with regalian, private, and civil authorities, groups, > and individuals as the FSP4NET Multi-Stakeholder Group under the common > authoritative signature FSP4NET at alliance@fsp4.net. The mails received > at this address will be forwarded to the fsp4@fsp4.net dynamic coalition > internal mailing list to be addressed after having been collectively > discussed. > > 5. to give telepresse.com an observatory status on this mailing list. > > Secretariat will be assumed by Intlnet. > > In so doing, FSP4NET/NETORSEC experiments an MS governance model that it > intends to refine and that it wants to be polycratic, that is, gathering > free members of the Multitude, i.e. persons and initiatives retaining the= ir > entire self-determination vis-=C3=A0-vis any non-legally binding governan= ce > rule, for them to concert, then authoritatively and individually decide, > and adjust to the possibly resulting emergence. This results in the FSP4N= ET > coalition and signature expressing multi-author dynamic positions toward = an > IG polylogue that targets consensus progressive discoveries, rather than > multiple dialogues multilaterally seeking bilateral agreements. This > reflects that even a rough consensus is still more than the multilateral > sum of its underlying bilateral agreements. > > _______________________________________________ > ianatransition mailing list > ianatransition@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition > --=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng * --001a11c12d641c523304f7689366 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am quite puzzled here, how can a call to be transpa= rent results to voluntary withdrawal, is that confirmation of the perceived= ?. Perhaps it may be good to know the composition of the "we", wh= at are the attitude referred and who are members of the Multitude?

Cheers!


On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 5:56 PM, FSP4NET &l= t;alliance@fsp4.net<= /a>> wrote:

The attitude of several of the participants in the ICANN governance of the = Sao Paulo/"NTIAtransition" process mailing lists in regards to ou= r stakeholder's needs and against the members of the Multitude we are h= as demonstrated the practical inability of this process to adapt to the rea= lity of the 2014 network use and of what should be an Open Multi-Stakeholde= r process and cooperation.

This calls for some additional structural adaptation from people characteri= zed by their self-determination in front of the ICANN rigidity in order to = see the diversity of needs of their architecture of internet use securely a= ddressed and protected.

We have, therefore, resolved:

1. to terminate our individual participation in the "/1NET" and &= quot;IANAtransition" processes.

2. to convene a co-opted dynamic coalition for a fail-secure plan for virtu= al global networks by the name and collective signature of "FSP4NET&qu= ot; and of "NETORSEC" in the French language.

3. to assign to this dynamic coalition the management of an enhanced coalit= ion for a development executed in cooperation between the Libre, institutio= nal, and competitive sector (DECLIC, http://dnsa.org/index.php/DECLIC) of th= e VGN fail-secure "HomeRoot", "SuperIANA", "Happy-= IP", etc. =C2=A0works, documentation, development, and experimentation= projects.

4. to collectively dialogue on the /1NET, IANAtransition, and other mailing= lists and with regalian, private, and civil authorities, groups, and indiv= iduals as the FSP4NET Multi-Stakeholder Group under the common authoritativ= e signature FSP4NET at alliance@fsp4.net. The mails received at this address will be forwar= ded to the fsp4@fsp4.net= dynamic coalition internal mailing list to be addressed after having b= een collectively discussed.

5. to give telepresse.c= om an observatory status on this mailing list.

Secretariat will be assumed by Intlnet.

In so doing, FSP4NET/NETORSEC experiments an MS governance model that it in= tends to refine and that it wants to be polycratic, that is, gathering free= members of the Multitude, i.e. persons and initiatives retaining their ent= ire self-determination vis-=C3=A0-vis any non-legally binding governance ru= le, for them to concert, then authoritatively and individually decide, and = adjust to the possibly resulting emergence. This results in the FSP4NET coa= lition and signature expressing multi-author dynamic positions toward an IG= polylogue that targets consensus progressive discoveries, rather than mult= iple dialogues multilaterally seeking bilateral agreements. This reflects t= hat even a rough consensus is still more than the multilateral sum of its u= nderlying bilateral agreements.

_______________________________________________
ianatransition mailing list
ianatransitio= n@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition



--
-----------------------= -------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-E= kiti
web:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoy= e.edu.ng

--001a11c12d641c523304f7689366-- From nobody Sat Apr 19 12:15:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA4AB1A0024 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:15:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.731 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.731 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tXSpPUU4X-M4 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFAA1A004C for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:15:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fsp4.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Cc:Subject:From:To:Date; bh=w7q8aTG0cBdzINosQEqTQQsKe5VMpmwqclOdqn6BBxU=; b=QcBtpKGVaXS5x5nNBe4ueBlY3WTk8JIKIH4+WkIR5ylfIwWrd0glXFSMqairVAYoV2aeoxE6RQMr8OdDLetKtpjADWMRZtycSedlwrxQDCUn/MSaoTxEzpd9jogfJtI4dKsjn5+Ff1LwkSxeNguvHugQsxGC+nhY36hxR9ILyRE=; Received: from 47.211.130.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.130.211.47]:31371 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1Wbajj-00073H-TS; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:15:40 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 21:15:34 +0200 To: Seun Ojedeji From: FSP4NET In-Reply-To: References: <201404191656.s3JGucdr017013@pechora1.lax.icann.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - fsp4.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/aozqQu8pbfLebJM7WmkZ5doOcBQ Cc: 1net , info@intgovforum.icann.org, Larry Strickling , "Ianatransition@Icann. Org" , IUCG@ietf.org, agora@dnsa.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [IANAtransition] VGN dynamic coalition and enhanced cooperation X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 19:15:50 -0000 At 19:26 19/04/2014, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >I am quite puzzled here, how can a call to be transparent results to >voluntary withdrawal, is that confirmation of the perceived?. You are welcome to participate to our work, for example in introducing a netiquette proposition for the NTIA distenciation mailing lists. You may have noted that the exchanges on these two lists have significantly dropped to the point they are improductive. We have collected enough inputs that confirm the need for the IUsers of solutions not depending on ICANN. This is now the priority for them to dispose of a working VGNIC before January 17, 2015. >Perhaps it may be good to know the composition of the "we", what are >the attitude referred and who are members of the Multitude? The Multitude has a well defined legal and diplomatic meaning. We apply it, in the Internet Governance area, to the individual Informed Users and public and private bodies wishing to stay independant from every non-legally binding digital sovereignty prentence and exclusive influence, and their own master of their multitechnology VGN. If your question is to know who is each of them: we demand intellectual and economical transparency from the people we pay, we also expect from them to respect our personal privacy as we respect their. In an MS processes we treated them as partners, they did not, showing that they have not yet scaled to that geometric level. As everything concerning them: they decide what the want to do or disclose. Sincerely, FSP4NET From nobody Sat Apr 19 18:31:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873C81A00BF for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 18:31:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.6 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, MANGLED_WRLDWD=2.3, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C7Caa1KoKnWZ for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 18:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB17D1A0096 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 18:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pdce1.reedsmith.com (pdce1.reedsmith.com [199.125.201.10]) (Using TLS) by us-mta-5.us.mimecast.lan; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 21:31:25 -0400 Received: from USPDCMAIL005P.reedsmith.com (10.180.2.5) by pdce1.reedsmith.com (10.180.221.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.4; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 21:31:24 -0400 Received: from USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com ([fe80::78c8:1ed3:1b7a:8fd]) by USPDCMAIL005P.reedsmith.com ([fe80::f579:904f:79a6:f5b8%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.007; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 21:31:23 -0400 From: "Shatan, Gregory S." To: 'Brian E Carpenter' , Seun Ojedeji Thread-Topic: [discuss] [IANAtransition] VGN dynamic coalition and enhanced cooperation Thread-Index: AQHPXBKnzDvcJaUMlk+l/u2e8z8fLJsZqMsw Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 01:31:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: <201404191656.s3JGucdr017013@pechora1.lax.icann.org> <5352E3E6.4060906@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5352E3E6.4060906@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.180.2.100] x-exclaimer-md-config: 35a2a35a-5651-415b-b3fc-0e9c17e2e02e MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MC-Unique: 9Vw5dQ0gRXO0OIQ47vjJSw-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/4IuaP9ZGaZig_ZSfGq2B7-ufy3Y Cc: 1net , "info@intgovforum.icann.org" , Larry Strickling , "Ianatransition@Icann. Org" , "IUCG@ietf.org" , "agora@dnsa.org" Subject: Re: [iucg] [discuss] [IANAtransition] VGN dynamic coalition and enhanced cooperation X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 01:31:47 -0000 SGVyZSBhcmUgdHdvIG1vcmUgc29sdXRpb25zIHRvIHNpbWlsYXIgInB1enpsZXMsIiBpbmNsdWRp bmcgdGhlICJNaWNoZWwgR2F1dGhpZXIiIHB1enpsZSAgSW4gYm90aCBjYXNlcywgdGhlIHNvbHV0 aW9uIChpLmUuLCBpZGVudGl0eSkgaXMgdGhlIHNhbWUgLS0gSmVmc2V5IE1vcmZpbi4NCg0KRmly c3QsIGFsbCBvZiB0aGUgZG9tYWluIG5hbWVzIGludm9sdmVkIGluIHRoaXMgZWZmb3J0IChmc3A0 Lm5ldCwgamVmc2V5LmNvbSwgdGVsZXByZXNzZS5jb20sIGFuZCBkbnNhLm9yZyAoYW5kIGFyb3Vu ZCA2NTAgb3RoZXIgZG9tYWluIG5hbWVzKSkgYXJlICByZWdpc3RlcmVkIHRvIHRoZSBzYW1lIHN0 cmVldCBhZGRyZXNzOg0KDQoxMjAgY2hlbWluIGRlcyBDcm91emV0dGVzDQpTYWludCBWaW5jZW50 IGRlIEJhcmJleXJhcmd1ZXMNCkhlcmF1bHQgMzQ3MzANCkZSDQoNClRoZSByZWdpc3RyYW50IG5h bWVzIHZhcnkgc29tZXdoYXQgKFVURUwsIFVURUxORVQgYW5kIFdPUkxEQFdJREUgKHR3aWNlKSBh cmUgdXNlZCBvbiB0aGVzZSBmb3VyKS4gIEhvd2V2ZXIsIG9uIEdvb2dsZSBtYXBzLCB0aGlzIGFk ZHJlc3MgYXBwZWFycyB0byBiZSBhIHByaXZhdGUgcmVzaWRlbmNlIGluIGEgcmVzaWRlbnRpYWwg YXJlYS4gIEEgbnVtYmVyIG9mIGhvdXNlcyBoZXJlIGFyZSB0YWdnZWQgd2l0aCBuYW1lcyAocHJl c3VtYWJseSByZXNpZGVudHMgYW5kL29yIG93bmVycykuIFRoaXMgbG9jYXRpb24gaXMgdGFnZ2Vk IHdpdGggdGhlIGxhc3QgbmFtZSAiTW9yZmluLiIgIFRoZXJlZm9yZSBpdCB3b3VsZCBhcHBlYXIg dGhhdCBKZWZzZXkgTW9yZmluIGlzIHRoZSBvd25lciBvZiBhbGwgb2YgdGhlc2UgZG9tYWluIG5h bWVzLCBkZXNwaXRlIHRoZSB2YXJpb3VzIGFsaWFzZXMuDQoNClNlY29uZCwgdGhlIFdpa2lwZWRp YSBhcnRpY2xlIG9uICJNaWNoZWwgR2F1dGhpZXIiIHdhcyBhcHBhcmVudGx5IHNlbGYtd3JpdHRl biAoaS5lLiwgYnkgdGhlIHBlcnNvbiBwdXJwb3J0aW5nIHRvIGJlICJNaWNoZWwgR2F1dGhpZXIi KTogdGhlIGZpcnN0IGNvbW1lbnQgb24gdGhlIGhpc3RvcnkgaXMgImRvY3VtZW50w6kgbCdhY3Rp b24gcXVlIGplIG3DqG5lIGFwcsOpcyBhdm9pciBkb2N1bWVudMOpIG1vbiBub20gIiAgKCJkb2N1 bWVudGVkIG15IGVmZm9ydHMgYWZ0ZXIgaGF2aW5nIGRvY3VtZW50ZWQgbXkgbmFtZSAiKS4gIFRo ZXJlZm9yZSwgdGhlIGF1dGhvciBtdXN0IGJlICJNaWNoZWwgR2F1dGhpZXIuIiAgIFRoZSBhdXRo b3Igd2FzIG5vdCBsb2dnZWQgaW50byBXaWtpcGVkaWEsIHNvIHRoZSBoaXN0b3J5IG9ubHkgc2hv d3MgdGhlIElQIGFkZHJlc3Mgb2YgdGhlIGF1dGhvcjogMjEzLjQxLjE3NS4xNjEuICBUaGUgaWRl bnRpdHkgb2YgIk1pY2hlbCBHYXV0aGllciIgbWF5IHRoZXJlZm9yZSBiZSBsZWFybmVkIGJ5IGZv bGxvd2luZyB0aGlzIElQIGFkZHJlc3MuDQoNCkFzIGEgcmVzdWx0IG9mIGEgc2VhcmNoLCBJIGhh dmUgZm91bmQgdGhhdCB0aGlzIElQIGFkZHJlc3MgaXMgYXNzb2NpYXRlZCB3aXRoIGplZnNleUBq ZWZzZXkuY29tLiAgRm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIGluIHRoaXMgZW1haWwgaGVhZGVyIChmb3VuZCBhdCBo dHRwOi8vZnRwLnp1dC5lZHUucGwvZHNrMC9mdHAuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaWV0Zi1tYWlsLWFyY2hpdmUv aWRuLzIwMDgtMDMubWFpbCAgKToNCg0KUmVjZWl2ZWQ6IGZyb20gZXVyb2xhYi5uZXQyLm5lcmlt Lm5ldCAoWzIxMy40MS4xNzUuMTYxXTo0NTQ5IGhlbG89YXN1cy5qZWZzZXkuY29tKQ0KICAgICAg ICBieSBtb250YWdlMi5hbHRzZXJ2ZXIuY29tIHdpdGggZXNtdHAgKEV4aW0gNC42OCkNCiAgICAg ICAgKGVudmVsb3BlLWZyb20gPGplZnNleUBqZWZzZXkuY29tPikNCiAgICAgICAgaWQgMUpXSDJT LTAwMDNPSS0xTzsgTW9uLCAwMyBNYXIgMjAwOCAxMjoxMzozMyAtMDgwMA0KDQooU2ltaWxhciBo ZWFkZXJzIG1heSBiZSBmb3VuZCBhdCBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmtkZS5wcy5wbC9taXJyb3JzL2Z0cC5p ZXRmLm9yZy9pZXRmLW1haWwtYXJjaGl2ZS9pdWNnLzIwMDktMDgubWFpbCBhbmQgaHR0cDovL3d3 dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsLWFyY2hpdmUvd2ViL2l1Y2cvY3VycmVudC9tc2cwMDAwMi5odG1sIGFt b25nIG90aGVyIHBsYWNlcykuDQoNClRoZXJlZm9yZSBpdCB3b3VsZCBhcHBlYXIgdGhhdCAiTWlj aGVsIEdhdXRoaWVyIiBpcyBKZWZzZXkgTW9yZmluLg0KDQpUaGF0J3MgZW5vdWdoIGZvciBtZS4N Cg0KR3JlZyBTaGF0YW4NCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IGRpc2N1 c3MtYm91bmNlc0AxbmV0Lm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOmRpc2N1c3MtYm91bmNlc0AxbmV0Lm9yZ10gT24g QmVoYWxmIE9mIEJyaWFuIEUgQ2FycGVudGVyDQpTZW50OiBTYXR1cmRheSwgQXByaWwgMTksIDIw MTQgNTowMCBQTQ0KVG86IFNldW4gT2plZGVqaQ0KQ2M6IDFuZXQ7IGluZm9AaW50Z292Zm9ydW0u aWNhbm4ub3JnOyBMYXJyeSBTdHJpY2tsaW5nOyBJYW5hdHJhbnNpdGlvbkBJY2Fubi4gT3JnOyBJ VUNHQGlldGYub3JnOyBhZ29yYUBkbnNhLm9yZw0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtkaXNjdXNzXSBbSUFO QXRyYW5zaXRpb25dIFZHTiBkeW5hbWljIGNvYWxpdGlvbiBhbmQgZW5oYW5jZWQgY29vcGVyYXRp b24NCg0KT24gMjAvMDQvMjAxNCAwNToyNiwgU2V1biBPamVkZWppIHdyb3RlOg0KPiBJIGFtIHF1 aXRlIHB1enpsZWQgaGVyZSwNCg0KVGhlIHB1enpsZSBpcyBlYXNpbHkgc29sdmVkLCB3aGVuIHlv dSBvYnNlcnZlIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBwaWVjZSBvZiBkcml2ZWwgY2FtZSB2aWEgSkZDJ3Mgc2VydmVy LCBleGFjdGx5IGxpa2UgdGhlIGRyaXZlbCBmcm9tICJNaWNoZWwgR2F1dGhpZXIiOg0KDQpSZWNl aXZlZDogZnJvbSA0Ny4yMTEuMTMwLjc3LnJldi5zZnIubmV0IChbNzcuMTMwLjIxMS40N106Mjkz MjUNCiAgICAgICAgaGVsbz1NT1JGSU4tUEMubWFpbC5qZWZzZXkuY29tKQ0KICAgICAgICBieSBo b3N0LnByZXNlbmNld2ViLm9yZyB3aXRoIGVzbXRwYSAoRXhpbSA0LjgyKQ0KICAgICAgICAoZW52 ZWxvcGUtZnJvbSA8YWxsaWFuY2VAZnNwNC5uZXQ+KQ0KICAgICAgICBpZCAxV2JZWjktMDAwMjhX LUtCOyBTYXQsIDE5IEFwciAyMDE0IDA5OjU2OjM2IC0wNzAwDQpYLU1haWxlcjogUVVBTENPTU0g V2luZG93cyBFdWRvcmEgVmVyc2lvbiA3LjEuMC45DQoNClBlcnNvbmFsbHkgSSB3aWxsIG5vdyBh ZGQgIm1nQHRlbGVwcmVzc2UuY29tIiBhbmQgImFsbGlhbmNlQGZzcDQubmV0IiB0byBteSBmaWx0 ZXJzLiBJdCdzIGdvbmUgZnJvbSBmdW5ueSB0byBhbm5veWluZy4NCg0KICAgIEJyaWFuDQoNCl9f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpkaXNjdXNzIG1h aWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KZGlzY3Vzc0AxbmV0Lm9yZw0KaHR0cDovLzFuZXQtbWFpbC4xbmV0Lm9yZy9t YWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2Rpc2N1c3MNCg0KDQoNCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAqICogKg0KDQpUaGlzIEUtbWFp bCwgYWxvbmcgd2l0aCBhbnkgYXR0YWNobWVudHMsIGlzIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQNCmNvbmZpZGVudGlh bCBhbmQgbWF5IHdlbGwgYmUgbGVnYWxseSBwcml2aWxlZ2VkLiBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNlaXZl ZCBpdCBpbg0KZXJyb3IsIHlvdSBhcmUgb24gbm90aWNlIG9mIGl0cyBzdGF0dXMuIFBsZWFzZSBu b3RpZnkgdXMgaW1tZWRpYXRlbHkgYnkgcmVwbHkNCmUtbWFpbCBhbmQgdGhlbiBkZWxldGUgdGhp cyBtZXNzYWdlIGZyb20geW91ciBzeXN0ZW0uIFBsZWFzZSBkbyBub3QgY29weSBpdCBvcg0KdXNl IGl0IGZvciBhbnkgcHVycG9zZXMsIG9yIGRpc2Nsb3NlIGl0cyBjb250ZW50cyB0byBhbnkgb3Ro ZXINCnBlcnNvbi4gVGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciB5b3VyIGNvb3BlcmF0aW9uLg0KDQogICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgKiAq ICoNCg0KVG8gZW5zdXJlIGNvbXBsaWFuY2Ugd2l0aCBUcmVhc3VyeSBEZXBhcnRtZW50IHJlZ3Vs YXRpb25zLCB3ZQ0KaW5mb3JtIHlvdSB0aGF0LCB1bmxlc3Mgb3RoZXJ3aXNlIGluZGljYXRlZCBp biB3cml0aW5nLCBhbnkgVS5TLiBGZWRlcmFsIHRheA0KYWR2aWNlIGNvbnRhaW5lZCBpbiB0aGlz IGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24gIChpbmNsdWRpbmcgYW55IGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzKSBpcyBub3QNCmludGVu ZGVkIG9yIHdyaXR0ZW4gdG8gYmUgdXNlZCwgYW5kIGNhbm5vdCBiZSB1c2VkLCBmb3IgdGhlIHB1 cnBvc2Ugb2YgKDEpDQphdm9pZGluZyBwZW5hbHRpZXMgdW5kZXIgdGhlIEludGVybmFsIFJldmVu dWUgQ29kZSBvciBhcHBsaWNhYmxlIHN0YXRlDQphbmQgbG9jYWwgcHJvdmlzaW9ucyBvciAoMikg cHJvbW90aW5nLCBtYXJrZXRpbmcgb3IgcmVjb21tZW5kaW5nIHRvIGFub3RoZXINCnBhcnR5IGFu eSB0YXgtcmVsYXRlZCBtYXR0ZXJzIGFkZHJlc3NlZCBoZXJlaW4uDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBE aXNjbGFpbWVyIFZlcnNpb24gUlMuVVMuMjAuMTAuMDANCg== From nobody Sat Apr 19 20:23:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D134E1A0096 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:23:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.003 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, MANGLED_WRLDWD=2.3, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nkjC8Oe0UFPC for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x236.google.com (mail-qa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D9E01A0084 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id w8so2747185qac.41 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:23:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=OYnOGQPKtsKtsoNHUcBmwTo6m7iwXD3HCJBaRmoVQEM=; b=Zs2omZ4tIDY1iTioAsMdT4Eccsnbe/86EXxHu529o9N9f+4cHj0RHAVHmtEzqW1OIj CAwxG0NYPLKLycImbz2sfSVh4IuWiBUW8ohfFiZIop4LrWYeVCr/IIhvyyJs0EWOvlsC lKumw6X20YsMgubWYyJds1ZKtttHdsWWK/opHNvlhOvRlgyGRPjXTmykdzyp8iGrg97j P5T5v30Kjl+WyDxFHQ6uTR6i3fWYLRawt+qpG5+06dv1FhVTetpk9jJxT4+g6K6vk+o4 udrQ8itLj83hoay1Oqym/qIrU28WBMCXZdLeX6HQsNU2m8CT5GZ85/dCFD/gYn+CHyv7 VJvA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.229.89.65 with SMTP id d1mr29635466qcm.14.1397964220352; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.116.80 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.116.80 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:23:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201404191656.s3JGucdr017013@pechora1.lax.icann.org> <5352E3E6.4060906@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 04:23:39 +0100 Message-ID: From: Seun Ojedeji To: Mike Roberts Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133cbc8c34d5404f770e830 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/HvQJgGmLwOl8WyK1LFvdYmJ-cIw Cc: 1net , "info@intgovforum.icann.org" , "Shatan, Gregory S." , Larry Strickling , ianatransition@icann.org, "IUCG@ietf.org" , "agora@dnsa.org" , Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: [iucg] [discuss] [IANAtransition] VGN dynamic coalition and enhanced cooperation X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 03:23:50 -0000 --001a1133cbc8c34d5404f770e830 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I had not even looked at the header, just the content already speak it's source. However the main puzzle which may difficult to solve is how a call for transparency resulted to withdrawal. Obviously it seem there are different meanings of those words existing. The JFC response further complicated my puzzle by marketing all bunch of things ranging from DNSA, VGNIC, multitude membership et all, instead of just responding to a straight forward question. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 20 Apr 2014 03:10, "Mike Roberts" wrote: > > > Thanks for the research, Greg. I have engaged the services of Hercule > Poirot to further investigate this egregious breach of Internet etiquette > and manners. > > - Mike > > > ps. A famous person once said, =E2=80=9CHospitality=E2=80=99s nice, but = so are manners.=E2=80=9D > > > > > On Apr 19, 2014, at 6:31 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. > wrote: > > > Here are two more solutions to similar "puzzles," including the "Michel > Gauthier" puzzle In both cases, the solution (i.e., identity) is the sam= e > -- Jefsey Morfin. > > > > First, all of the domain names involved in this effort (fsp4.net, > jefsey.com, telepresse.com, and dnsa.org (and around 650 other domain > names)) are registered to the same street address: > > > > 120 chemin des Crouzettes > > Saint Vincent de Barbeyrargues > > Herault 34730 > > FR > > > > The registrant names vary somewhat (UTEL, UTELNET and WORLD@WIDE(twice)= are used on these four). However, on Google maps, this address > appears to be a private residence in a residential area. A number of > houses here are tagged with names (presumably residents and/or owners). > This location is tagged with the last name "Morfin." Therefore it would > appear that Jefsey Morfin is the owner of all of these domain names, > despite the various aliases. > > > > Second, the Wikipedia article on "Michel Gauthier" was apparently > self-written (i.e., by the person purporting to be "Michel Gauthier"): th= e > first comment on the history is "document=C3=A9 l'action que je m=C3=A8ne= apr=C3=A9s avoir > document=C3=A9 mon nom " ("documented my efforts after having documented= my > name "). Therefore, the author must be "Michel Gauthier." The author w= as > not logged into Wikipedia, so the history only shows the IP address of th= e > author: 213.41.175.161. The identity of "Michel Gauthier" may therefore = be > learned by following this IP address. > > > > As a result of a search, I have found that this IP address is associate= d > with jefsey@jefsey.com. For example, in this email header (found at > http://ftp.zut.edu.pl/dsk0/ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/idn/2008-03.mai= l ): > > > > Received: from eurolab.net2.nerim.net ([213.41.175.161]:4549 helo=3D > asus.jefsey.com) > > by montage2.altserver.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68) > > (envelope-from ) > > id 1JWH2S-0003OI-1O; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:13:33 -0800 > > > > (Similar headers may be found at > http://www.kde.ps.pl/mirrors/ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/iucg/2009-08.= mailand > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iucg/current/msg00002.html among > other places). > > > > Therefore it would appear that "Michel Gauthier" is Jefsey Morfin. > > > > That's enough for me. > > > > Greg Shatan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: discuss-bounces@1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org] On > Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter > > Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 5:00 PM > > To: Seun Ojedeji > > Cc: 1net; info@intgovforum.icann.org; Larry Strickling; > Ianatransition@Icann. Org; IUCG@ietf.org; agora@dnsa.org > > Subject: Re: [discuss] [IANAtransition] VGN dynamic coalition and > enhanced cooperation > > > > On 20/04/2014 05:26, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >> I am quite puzzled here, > > > > The puzzle is easily solved, when you observe that this piece of drivel > came via JFC's server, exactly like the drivel from "Michel Gauthier": > > > > Received: from 47.211.130.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.130.211.47]:29325 > > helo=3DMORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) > > by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) > > (envelope-from ) > > id 1WbYZ9-00028W-KB; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 09:56:36 -0700 > > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 > > > > Personally I will now add "mg@telepresse.com" and "alliance@fsp4.net" > to my filters. It's gone from funny to annoying. > > > > Brian > > > > _______________________________________________ > > discuss mailing list > > discuss@1net.org > > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > * * * > > > > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered > > confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received i= t > in > > error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by > reply > > e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not cop= y > it or > > use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other > > person. Thank you for your cooperation. > > > > * * * > > > > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we > > inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federa= l > tax > > advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is > not > > intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of > (1) > > avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state > > and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to > another > > party any tax-related matters addressed herein. > > > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 > > _______________________________________________ > > discuss mailing list > > discuss@1net.org > > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > --001a1133cbc8c34d5404f770e830 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I had not even looked at the header, just the content alread= y speak it's source. However the main puzzle which may difficult to sol= ve is how a call for transparency resulted to withdrawal.

Obviously it seem there are different meanings of those word= s existing. The JFC response further complicated my puzzle by marketing all= bunch of things ranging from DNSA, VGNIC, multitude membership et all, ins= tead of just responding to a straight forward question.

Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 20 Apr 2014 03:10, "Mike Roberts" &= lt;mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us> w= rote:


Thanks for the research, Greg. =C2=A0I have engaged the services of Hercule= Poirot to further investigate this egregious breach of Internet etiquette = and manners.

- Mike


ps. =C2=A0A famous person once said, =E2=80=9CHospitality=E2=80=99s nice, b= ut so are manners.=E2=80=9D




On Apr 19, 2014, at 6:31 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan@ReedSmith.com&g= t; wrote:

> Here are two more solutions to similar "puzzles," including = the "Michel Gauthier" puzzle =C2=A0In both cases, the solution (i= .e., identity) is the same -- Jefsey Morfin.
>
> First, all of the domain names involved in this effort (fsp4.net, jefsey.com, telepresse.com, and dnsa.org (and around 650 other domain names)) are =C2=A0register= ed to the same street address:
>
> 120 chemin des Crouzettes
> Saint Vincent de Barbeyrargues
> Herault 34730
> FR
>
> The registrant names vary somewhat (UTEL, UTELNET and WORLD@WIDE (twic= e) are used on these four). =C2=A0However, on Google maps, this address app= ears to be a private residence in a residential area. =C2=A0A number of hou= ses here are tagged with names (presumably residents and/or owners). This l= ocation is tagged with the last name "Morfin." =C2=A0Therefore it= would appear that Jefsey Morfin is the owner of all of these domain names,= despite the various aliases.
>
> Second, the Wikipedia article on "Michel Gauthier" was appar= ently self-written (i.e., by the person purporting to be "Michel Gauth= ier"): the first comment on the history is "document=C3=A9 l'= action que je m=C3=A8ne apr=C3=A9s avoir document=C3=A9 mon nom " =C2= =A0("documented my efforts after having documented my name "). = =C2=A0Therefore, the author must be "Michel Gauthier." =C2=A0 The= author was not logged into Wikipedia, so the history only shows the IP add= ress of the author: 213.41.175.161. =C2=A0The identity of "Michel Gaut= hier" may therefore be learned by following this IP address.
>
> As a result of a search, I have found that this IP address is associat= ed with jefsey@jefsey.com. =C2=A0F= or example, in this email header (found at ht= tp://ftp.zut.edu.pl/dsk0/ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/idn/2008-03.mail =C2=A0):
>
> Received: from eurolab.net2.nerim.net ([213.41.175.161]:4549 helo=3Dasus.jefsey.com)
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0by montage2.altserver.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68)
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(envelope-from <jefsey@jefsey.com>)
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0id 1JWH2S-0003OI-1O; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:13= :33 -0800
>
> (Similar headers may be found at http= ://www.kde.ps.pl/mirrors/ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/iucg/2009-08.mail and http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iucg/current= /msg00002.html among other places).
>
> Therefore it would appear that "Michel Gauthier" is Jefsey M= orfin.
>
> That's enough for me.
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces@1net= .org [mailto:discuss-bounce= s@1net.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 5:00 PM
> To: Seun Ojedeji
> Cc: 1net; info@intgovfor= um.icann.org; Larry Strickling; Ianatransition@Icann. Org; IUCG@ietf.org; a= gora@dnsa.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] [IANAtransition] VGN dynamic coalition and enha= nced cooperation
>
> On 20/04/2014 05:26, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>> I am quite puzzled here,
>
> The puzzle is easily solved, when you observe that this piece of drive= l came via JFC's server, exactly like the drivel from "Michel Gaut= hier":
>
> Received: from 47.211.130.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.130.211.47]:29325
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0helo=3DMORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com)
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82)
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(envelope-from <alliance@fsp4.net>)
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0id 1WbYZ9-00028W-KB; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 09:56= :36 -0700
> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
>
> Personally I will now add "m= g@telepresse.com" and "a= lliance@fsp4.net" to my filters. It's gone from funny to annoy= ing.
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss@1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0* * *
>
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
> confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received = it in
> error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately b= y reply
> e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not co= py it or
> use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
> person. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0* * *
>
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
> inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Feder= al tax
> advice contained in this communication =C2=A0(including any attachment= s) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of= (1)
> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state=
> and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to an= other
> party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss@1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

--001a1133cbc8c34d5404f770e830-- From nobody Sun Apr 20 08:05:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A4D1A0011 for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 08:05:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.531 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09uXef34H0xT for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 08:05:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB931A018F for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 08:05:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fsp4.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Cc:Subject:From:To:Date; bh=NH1RFmQoXE7IsSVK/ZZ/exsmwrjuGG2n0dOebn96roQ=; b=ILqI+4Q9CMvMf2jwofshviGPu5kU1btEzY0Xja7CpeUhvHdRK4yecCYyygu0HbQ7yAm8oEtXX2C1sPx62KOMn+LkFGMBsh6H3V1a2s/g/ALIM6lzNeC7d93CxnHlYNxtM/tPoEFyW36hLYOji86mhtD708tS8STKXUsR0rh0Cos=; Received: from 47.211.130.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.130.211.47]:40872 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WbtIj-000654-Pe; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 08:05:02 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:04:42 +0200 To: Seun Ojedeji From: FSP4NET In-Reply-To: References: <201404191656.s3JGucdr017013@pechora1.lax.icann.org> <5352E3E6.4060906@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - fsp4.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/StDvgCiCF_RkE5R1jVWBykfcv-0 Cc: fsp4@fsp4.net, "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [iucg] [discuss] [IANAtransition] VGN dynamic coalition and enhanced cooperation X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:05:12 -0000 On 05:23 20/04/2014, Seun Ojedeji said: >I had not even looked at the header, just the content already speak >it's source. However the main puzzle which may difficult to solve is >how a call for transparency resulted to withdrawal. > >Obviously it seem there are different meanings of those words >existing. The JFC response further complicated my puzzle by >marketing all bunch of things ranging from DNSA, VGNIC, multitude >membership et all, instead of just responding to a straight forward question. This is a good question by a good techie. The response is simple enough: you want to square the circle. You want to read us and the internet the way you want us to be and we are not (neither us nor the net). The best way we found to technially undestand it for ourselves, and to explain it to people like you, is the Vint Cerf's quote on the http://vgnics.net left side (the site has been hacked). Because it is in your language and the basis of what you have dedicated your life to. We tried to evangelize those who believe they can govern us. We tested it would be in vain. It is better and cheaper for us to fix the hack and resume our work and experimentation. Regards. FSP4NET From nobody Tue Apr 22 11:23:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABFB91A06B0 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:23:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.632 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, GB_SUMOF=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DFPec27ckH5v for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795571A024D for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [184.170.129.121] (port=9617 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WcfLk-0000hk-Db; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:23:21 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:23:13 +0200 To: idna-update@alvestrand.no From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <53558738.4000403@abenaki.wabanaki.net> References: <4DDA07078D8B4BC59CE44C920697FE5B@PeterPC> <53558738.4000403@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_382859400==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/WkNE-Evove6w7SdW5R9yqxjv4oc Cc: fsp4@fsp4.net, "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [iucg] Update to clarify combining characters X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:23:36 -0000 --=====================_382859400==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >At 23:01 21/04/2014, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: >Obviously, what ICANN gTLD registry operators do is governed by >contacts between they and ICANN, and what ccTLD registry operators >is also governed, in part, by desires for consistency, but below (or >outside) of these namespaces with _local_ (not pervasive to all >levels of the tree) restrictions on labels, what resolves is a >local question -- local in the sense of both the FQDN, the RRSet >associated, and the resolvers to which query(s) are made. I tend to think that the whole internet project's success depends on its consistency, i.e. that it developed with many constraints but without contradiction with its http://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt seed. This model, however, suffers from an inconsistency that I call the "bug" (for "being unilaterally global") that seems to root in the word "loose" in: its thrid paragraph: "The term 'local' is used in a *loose* sense, here, since it means 'peculiar to the particular network' rather than 'a network of limited geographic extent.'". The term *loose* is something that depends on semantic imagination and that politicians like, but that lawmakers and engineers dislike. However, this term seems to translate something perfectly clear (and, therefore, built-in in the French context of the catenet concept). In the French language, the word "global" has usually gone beyond its "limited geographic extent" meaning. It stands for what IEN 48 wants to be prepared for, and is (I understand) sometimes described in English as "wholity" (as in the whole is larger than the sum of its parts). It is conceptual rather than geographical: local is then what is "peculiar to the [local] particulars", i.e. documented by the "locale" file. This is why I submit that limitations introduced by the English language to Louis Pouzin's catenet concept conceived in the French language context have been further consolidated as constraints by the IETF, in opposition to the IEN 48 catenet model principles. These principles are documented in the two following sentences: - "No explicit network hierarchy is assumed in this model", - "A very important aspect of this model is that no a priori distinction is made between a host/network interface and a gateway/network interface". The Loc/ID welding, that Louis Pouzin has always objected, is not consistent with: "The host/network interfaces are assumed to be unique to each network. Thus, no assumptions about common network interfaces are made." A community at the "local gateway" interface has been assumed to be so tight as to melt the host and interface together in a topological unicity. In here, we are hit by this same difficulty, which has prevented the second IEN 48 multitechnology (and implied multilinguistics) motivation from being accomplished, and also led to the "status quo" strategy. *Lose locality* was supposed to be supported at the local gateway "host/network interface", i.e. on both "halves" of the host/network gateway/interface (remember no distinction must be made between the two). This means, topologically, this has to happen at the missing OSI presentation layer six and both ways. - This has been patched one way by the "locale" file; - we still missed the "netlocale" equivalent to permit the host to adapt to what is "peculiar to the particular network" and "unique to each network". This is now provided in part by IDNA2008. The remaining unsolved IDNA2008 element is its topological location. The "unusual" (the term it uses, in that it documents an over the end issue) RFC 5895 has exemplified the solution in line with RFC 1122, 1958, and 3439. I accepted it because it permits us to read the internet as an "inter-interface" network, what I call the "interplus", i.e. inter-presentation layer on the user side. You may remember that my opposition to Vint was that he wanted to retain the IDNA2008 layer six functionalities only on the network side - may be in reaction to IDNA2003 which located them in the very applications (as do today's APPS or the W3C). However, one could not venture into my proposed intelligent use inteface (IUI) without the IETF making sure that (1) it was consistent with the whole set of RFCs [there are several WGs on that] and (2) how this would be documented since that IUI could interface the Host (unleashed from/or through the internet) with multiple technologies documented by their own SDO that the IAB would have to liaise with. This second point has resulted in Russ Housley's: 1) agreement and help for the creation of the IUCG@IETF mailing list, to try to make informed users (IUsers) speak and contribute about their host and beyond the host technical needs. i.e. in the "unusual" area of RFC 5895. 2) RFC 6852 which certainly prepares a "global" (French meaning) internet, but the IUCG cannot endorse yet because it does not include an MS convergence process in case of discordance (concepts, protocols, parameters, uses) between what they call "global communities". This is what the NTIA asks ICANN to document. >On 10:10 22/04/2014, Cary Karp said: >I had always assumed that the trailing order of combining marks was >imposed directly by Unicode and that this simply cascaded into IDNA. >Can that constraint actually be overridden in any situation that >would be trapped by a new contextual rule in 5892? (If new rules >are going to be added, there are a few others that might be >suggested. Is that topic now open for discussion?) This is a very important question that also affects the variants. The "inter-IUI"/Interplus catenet model implies that "no a priori distinction is made between a host/network interface and a gateway/network interface". This cascades to the host/human interface. At the H/H stratum, IDNA2008 appears as a "netlocale", i.e. how the "center of the information society" (the person) is to digitally deal with its different internet supported relational spaces (in our case, through the physical host/human interface: the Unicoded (or not) keyboard and screen. We, therefore, have to be careful at locating constraints (every solution implies constraints) at a place of least nuisance (Harald cited the "principle of least astonishment"). My own rule was: "no gateway trespassing MUST". Therefore, I would aswer: no. You might remember that I was very opposed to whatever could block the support of French majuscules, as also an example of orthotypographic support (which can be a very broad matter). I still wish to experiment their support at the IUI level in a more generalized digital and semiotic environment before determining what belongs to end to end (if any) and to fringe to fringe (what I am, [and others seem to be] now engaging). Much will depend on the work on the ML-DNS (Multi-Ledger DNS) I had said at the begining of IDNA2008. But this is another issue that calls for a series of I_D I might introduce after the Sao Paulo meeting. The considerations regarding the cost to support of a language may then totally change. This is line with my ".fra" project. >At 14:46 22/04/2014, Cary Karp wrote: >A lot of energy is being focused on that in ICANN's VIP program, to >which anyone with immediate interest in that discuss should probably refer. A lot of energy is spent in different fora to attain some consistency in the digital multilinguistics area. I have not noted yet, in those I follow, a real degree of convergence. I am on vip@icann.org where there were 24 mails in 2013: what is the one to be on? Thank you! jfc --=====================_382859400==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 23:01 21/04/2014, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
Obviously, what ICANN gTLD registry operators do is governed by contacts between they and ICANN, and what ccTLD registry operators is also governed, in part, by desires for consistency, but below (or outside) of these namespaces with _local_ (not pervasive to all levels of the tree) restrictions  on labels, what resolves is a local question -- local in the sense of both the FQDN, the RRSet associated, and the resolvers to which query(s) are made.

I tend to think that the whole internet project's success depends on its consistency, i.e. that it developed with many constraints but without contradiction with its http://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt seed. This model, however, suffers from an inconsistency that I call the "bug" (for "being unilaterally global") that seems to root in the word "loose" in: its thrid paragraph: "The term 'local' is used in a *loose* sense, here, since it means 'peculiar to the particular network' rather than 'a network of limited geographic extent.'".

The term *loose* is something that depends on semantic imagination and that politicians like, but that lawmakers and engineers dislike. However, this term seems to translate something perfectly clear (and, therefore, built-in in the French context of the catenet concept). In the French language, the word "global" has usually gone beyond its "limited geographic extent" meaning. It stands for what IEN 48 wants to be prepared for, and is (I understand) sometimes described in English as "wholity" (as in the whole is larger than the sum of its parts). It is conceptual rather than geographical: local is then what is “peculiar to the [local] particulars”, i.e. documented by the "locale" file.

This is why I submit that limitations introduced by the English language to Louis Pouzin's catenet concept conceived in the French language context have been further consolidated as constraints by the IETF, in opposition to the IEN 48 catenet model principles.

These principles are documented in the two following sentences:
- "No explicit network hierarchy is assumed in this model",
- "A very important aspect of this model is that no a priori distinction is made between a host/network interface and a gateway/network interface".

The Loc/ID welding, that Louis Pouzin has always objected, is not consistent with: "The host/network interfaces are assumed to be unique to each network. Thus, no assumptions about common network interfaces are made." A community at the “local gateway” interface has been assumed to be so tight as to melt the host and interface together in a topological unicity.


In here, we are hit by this same difficulty, which has prevented the second IEN 48 multitechnology (and implied multilinguistics) motivation from being accomplished, and also led to the "status quo" strategy.

*Lose locality* was supposed to be supported at the local gateway "host/network interface", i.e. on both "halves" of the host/network gateway/interface (remember no distinction must be made between the two). This means, topologically, this has to happen at the missing OSI presentation layer six and both ways.
- This has been patched one way by the "locale" file;
- we still missed the "netlocale" equivalent to permit the host to adapt to what is "peculiar to the particular network" and "unique to each network". This is now provided in part by IDNA2008.

The remaining unsolved IDNA2008 element is its topological location.

The "unusual" (the term it uses, in that it documents an over the end issue) RFC 5895 has exemplified the solution in line with RFC 1122, 1958, and 3439. I accepted it because it permits us to read the internet as an "inter-interface" network, what I call the "interplus", i.e. inter-presentation layer on the user side. You may remember that my opposition to Vint was that he wanted to retain the IDNA2008 layer six functionalities only on the network side - may be in reaction to IDNA2003 which located them in the very applications (as do today's APPS or the W3C).


However, one could not venture into my proposed intelligent use inteface (IUI) without the IETF making sure that (1) it was consistent with the whole set of RFCs [there are several WGs on that] and (2) how this would be documented since that IUI could interface the Host (unleashed from/or through the internet) with multiple technologies documented by their own SDO that the IAB would have to liaise with. This second point has resulted in Russ Housley's:

1) agreement and help for the creation of the IUCG@IETF mailing list, to try to make informed users (IUsers) speak and contribute about their host and beyond the host technical needs. i.e. in the "unusual" area of RFC 5895.
2) RFC 6852 which certainly prepares a "global" (French meaning) internet, but the IUCG cannot endorse yet because it does not include an MS convergence process in case of discordance (concepts, protocols, parameters, uses) between what they call "global communities". This is what the NTIA asks ICANN to document.


On 10:10 22/04/2014, Cary Karp said:
I had always assumed that the trailing order of combining marks was imposed directly by Unicode and that this simply cascaded into IDNA. Can that constraint actually be overridden in any situation that would be trapped by a new contextual rule in 5892?  (If new rules are going to be added, there are a few others that might be suggested. Is that topic now open for discussion?)

This is a very important question that also affects the variants. The "inter-IUI"/Interplus catenet model implies that "no a priori distinction is made between a host/network interface and a gateway/network interface". This cascades to the host/human interface. At the H/H stratum, IDNA2008 appears as a "netlocale", i.e. how the "center of the information society" (the person) is to digitally deal with its different internet supported relational spaces (in our case, through the physical host/human interface: the Unicoded (or not) keyboard and screen.

We, therefore, have to be careful at locating constraints (every solution implies constraints) at a place of least nuisance (Harald cited the "principle of least astonishment"). My own rule was: “no gateway trespassing MUST”.

Therefore, I would aswer: no. You might remember that I was very opposed to whatever could block the support of French majuscules, as also an example of orthotypographic support (which can be a very broad matter). I still wish to experiment their support at the IUI level in a more generalized digital and semiotic environment before determining what belongs to end to end (if any) and to fringe to fringe (what I am, [and others seem to be] now engaging).

Much will depend on the work on the ML-DNS (Multi-Ledger DNS) I had said at the begining of IDNA2008. But this is another issue that calls for a series of I_D I might introduce after the Sao Paulo meeting. The considerations regarding the cost to support of a language may then totally change. This is line with my ".fra" project.


At 14:46 22/04/2014, Cary Karp wrote:
A lot of energy is being focused on that in ICANN's VIP program, to which anyone with immediate interest in that discuss should probably refer.

A lot of energy is spent in different fora to attain some consistency in the digital multilinguistics area. I have not noted yet, in those I follow, a real degree of convergence. I am on vip@icann.org where there were 24 mails in 2013: what is the one to be on? Thank you!

jfc
--=====================_382859400==.ALT--