Re: [Ianaplan] [[e-mail]: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition]

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On May 4, 2015, at 5:49 AM, Jefsey <[e-mail]> wrote:
> we are talking of machines. Machines have no faith, no patience. They work or do not work. I am afraid ICANN has to convince billions of VGNs that its proposition works, is reliable and is of interest.

jefsey - 

 You replied to me noting that "ICANN has to convince billions of VGNs that its 
 proposition works, is reliable and is of interest.”

 6 months ago on this list, you already addressed that concern, by indicating
 that “ICANN is building is the ICANN VGN as an heir of the US VGN” and that 
 you supposed that very large number of users will follow such (see attached).

 I am happy to respond to you in the context of your own unique and innovative
 worldview, but it is then important to at least keep it a self-consistent worldview:
  
  -  ICANN has to convince the affected communities and their users, not VGNs;
  -  There is presently one dominant VGN (ICANN CGN), not billions of them.

Thanks!
/John

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Jefsey <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
> Date: November 4, 2014 at 6:54:28 AM EST
> To: Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> 
> Eliot,
> 
> if there is blunt transfer this will result from a clash, probably pursued by a standing conflict. Who ever is the owner of the name, the name will resolve where the root administrator decides. What ICANN is building is the ICANN VGN as an heir of the US VGN. I do not know how many users will follow them (I suppose, at least initially, a very large number). ICANN duties and survival interests will go (1) to its users and (2) to whatever may main retain these users.
> …