From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Apr 7 00:20:51 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:20:51 +0200 Subject: [agora 0001] Re: [IANAtransition] Global public interest in Internet identifieradministration... In-Reply-To: <201404061955.s36Jt67V004152@pechora8.dc.icann.org> References: <12a601cf51c1$bd7eb750$387c25f0$@gmail.com> <201404061955.s36Jt67V004152@pechora8.dc.icann.org> Message-ID: At 21:53 06/04/2014, Michel Gauthier wrote: >IRT Jefsey who says "Let us test if your dissensus does not only >results from different and limited points of view on the same >multitechnology reality". Very good summary of my position! jfc From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Apr 7 00:49:58 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:49:58 +0200 Subject: [agora 0002] Re: draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes In-Reply-To: References: <5340ba8f.48ae0e0a.769c.ffff8141SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: 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 at 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 at ietf.org >>From: iucg-request at 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Apr 7 15:09:08 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:09:08 +0200 Subject: [agora 0003] Re: [discuss] What is MSism? 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> Message-ID: 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Apr 7 17:11:42 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:11:42 +0200 Subject: [agora 0004] Re: [IANAtransition] MS model In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164217E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Apr 8 04:04:23 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 04:04:23 +0200 Subject: [agora 0005] Re: [discuss] What is MSism? 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> Message-ID: 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Apr 15 11:13:50 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:13:50 +0200 Subject: [agora 0006] Re: [governance] Re: [Marcocivil] RES: NetMundial Draft Outcome document Online for comments at the platform In-Reply-To: <534C867D.9030203@cafonso.ca> References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77DAFC7C@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> <534C867D.9030203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: 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