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

[Jefsey <[e-mail]>]

At 12:25 04/05/2015, John Curran wrote:
>On May 4, 2015, at 5:49 AM, Jefsey 
><<mailto:[e-mail]>[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 -
>  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:

My view is neither unique nor innovative. It is the fundamental 
impredicative nature of the universe: the heap of heaps, the 
community of communities, etc. that Louis Pouzin introduced in 1973 
(the catenet: "the network of network"). We proposed him to join our 
US/Europe public (FCC license, PTTs) implementation in may 1978 (but 
he was to close Cyclades in october). The rational of a VGN is pretty 
well documented by Vint Cerf in July 1978 (IEN 48,  the THE CATENET 
MODEL FOR INTERNETWORKING the ARPANET) when he explains te concept:

" 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."  A satellite-based network such as the 
ARPA packet satellite network therefore has "local" characteristics 
(e.g., broadcast operation) even though it spans many thousands of 
square miles geographically speaking."

RFC 6852 uses the same concept but in using the "global" term stating 
that it contributes "to the creation of global communities, 
benefiting humanity". A VGN is a virtual "glocal" network way of use 
the catenet principle, what has made its success and the success of 
the internet, i.e. the "loose sense" of "local" as "peculiar to a 
particular network" and of "global" "as benefiting to humanity" 
permitting innovative uses competition in the "deployment of 
standards regardless of their formal status" allowing "the global 
economy [to] realize a huge bounty".

This is what is called "permissionless innovation". This is what 
multistakeholderism is now to curb; since the "status-quo" strategy 
is no more adequate to control multiple technologies.

VGNs proceeds of the Einstein cosmological principle, of quantum 
physics, of the WSIS demand of a information society which is to be 
"people centered (billions of centers), à caractère humain, centrada 
en la persona." etc. VGNs are VGNs of VGNs. Mathematically everything 
is part of multitudes of non-meldable (quarks), semi-meldable (genes) 
and meldable (meme) heaps. The same as when you know something you 
get it into your memory (knowledge), and to comprehend it you "cum 
prehendere" it at the proper place in your understanding heap. 
Another metaphor that might help you are tensegrities (islands of 
constraints in oceans of tensions, of which the waters can mix).

One of the VGN support in the Internet architecture is the DNS 
CLASSes. ICANN has decided to make believe its VGN (supported by the 
"IN" ICANN/NTIA CLASS) was the only one. This is why many adhere to 
its VGN. However everyone has his own VGN (a VGN is defined by its 
stand-alone set of use/implementation characteristics: if one is 
different, this is another VGN). There are many characteristics and 
many layers that define a VGN (domain names, location, IP addresses, 
AS, ISP, etc. etc.).  Including billions of working DNS CLASSes.

ICANN wishes to be THE master VGN in gathering services that every 
VGN should want to adhere to: i.e. to use the DNS, IP, IANA.

Yet :

1) It misses user usable documentation. Its IANA only document the 
IETF technology parameters. What about the other technologies I use?

2) it is losing the reason why people accepted to believe in its 
tales: Oval Office/NTIA Sponsoring. They bet that Congress/FCC can be 
a workable alternative through TPP, TAFTA, etc. The Snowden enthymeme 
is clear "it is US; do not trust".

3) it is an architectonical BUG, at wanting to Be Unilaterally Global 
- even in pretending having a multistakeholder approach. Look: their 
first plan is to create an intricate affiliate (PTI).

4) it has competition, such as Libre, Google, BRICS governments, 
probably Europe.


>   -  ICANN has to convince the affected communities and their 
> users, not VGNs;
>   -  There is presently one dominant VGN (ICANN CGN), not billions of them.

Each user is the master of his/her VGN. i.e. the way he/she wants to 
use the catenet.

The NTIA sponsored ICANN VGN was dominant and will most probably 
benefit from an important histeresys.

Hpwever, with the NTIA gone, the BUG is no more a feature.

I have several VGNs : one is in the ICANN VGNs, another is only in 
part, another is not (but uses NRO's IP), the local one has nothing 
to do with the ICANN VGN, but it is in part an IETF VGN since it has 
its own protocols as well.

Best
jfc




>Thanks!
>/John
>
>>Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>From: Jefsey <<mailto:[e-mail]>[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 <<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]>, Andrew 
>>Sullivan <<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]>, 
>><mailto:[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.
>>…