[Ianaplan] I CAN NAB THE NET [was : What's happening at ICANN?]

JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> Sat, 10 October 2015 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jefsey@jefsey.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A8EA1B4AA9 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 15:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.434
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nDDVm2rvZ9VC for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 15:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E23BD1B4AB2 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 15:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:49268 helo=GHM-SAM.dot.dj) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <jefsey@jefsey.com>) id 1Zl31T-00080k-ON; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 15:53:53 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 00:54:02 +0200
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>,ianaplan@ietf.org, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org>,ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org
From: JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <56181181.50002@gmail.com>
References: <56181181.50002@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: intl+dot.dj/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Message-Id: <20151010225353.E23BD1B4AB2@ietfa.amsl.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/rjItzvClVXU4qFPwlVqrxg3mYH8>
Subject: [Ianaplan] I CAN NAB THE NET [was : What's happening at ICANN?]
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:53:57 -0000


Nabbing the net is an urban manner to describe 
what ICANN has always claimed: to be a radical 
“market monopoly” legitimacy (cf. Ivan Illich - 
This WG has made the IETF endorse that project, 
bringing in the former technical status quo, and 
hopefully for ICANN the control of the 
permissionless innovation in the wedding basket.

The way it is promoted by the US industries’ 
political, financial, and legal lobbies is 
clever. However, it is strategically and technically bugged.
- Strategically it relies on the intent to Be 
Unilaterally Global (BUG), something that cannot technically stand,
- and technically on the IP stack, which misses 
the OSI layer six and its extensions.

I will not tell a British person how a "Rule 
America" strategy cannot succeed and the author 
of RFC 1958 that the problem is at the fringe and 
in the way it handles the edge.

Now, there are four "communities" along the ICANN 
thinking and vision: names, addresses, protocols, 
and stakeholders. And that within a world 
prevalent in packet switch technology being 
diversely used. For me, there are also the 
(un)informed users (IUsers). Since 1986 (when the 
NSA closed my shop and started the IETF with my 
competition, due to Jon Postel's RFC 923), the 
only option was to experiment and try to help the 
adaptation along. Since the NSA was put in the 
minority in Dubai by other NSAs from Europe, 
BRICS, etc., things have started being potentially more open.

The ICANN Big Bug is only a bug. Fix the bug, and 
then things will go even better. I have 
identified this bug in a way that you should be 
in a position to easily falsify if I am wrong. 
You and many others have tried it, not by serious 
thinking but rather by way of political and 
technical authority and - for a few - commercial interest.

Now you are starting to share (parts of) my concern.

It is up to you to be honest with yourself. It 
took a long way for me to develop, test, and 
convince myself that the UNIX/NSA approach was 
inadequate, or at least incomplete - and the one 
we deployed worldwide from 1977 to 1986 was correct.

I do not claim that I am right. I just want to 
test if I am right and then advise others to 
consider what they think should be better and test it.



At 21:12 09/10/2015, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Could this WG, or the IETF as a whole, please get an update from our liaisons
>to the ICANN Board? The press stories are getting rather alarming, e.g.


At 23:18 09/10/2015, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> From 
> <https://eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared>https://eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared:
>"ICANN, the global domain name authority, 
>provoked a furore earlier this year over 
>proposals that could 
>the ability for owners of domain names to shield 
>their personal information from copyright and 
>trademark trolls, identity thieves, scammers and harassers.
>The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that 
>entire debate (at least for country-code 
>top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by 
>cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that 
>countries must provide “online public access 
>to a reliable and accurate database of contact 
>information concerning domain-name registrants.”
>The same provision also requires countries to 
>adopt an equivalent to ICANN's flawed Uniform 
>Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), 
>despite the fact that this controversial policy 
>is overdue for a formal review by ICANN, which 
>might result in the significant revision of this 
>policy. Where would this leave the TPP 
>countries, that are locked in to upholding a 
>UDRP-like policy for their own domains for the indefinite future?
>The TPP's prescription of rules for domain names 
>completely disregards the fact that most country 
>code domain registries have their own, open, 
>community-driven processes for determining rules 
>for managing domain name disputes. More than 
>that, this top-down rulemaking on domain names 
>is in direct contravention of the U.S. 
>administration's own 
>commitment to uphold the multi-stakeholder model 
>of Internet governance. Obviously, Internet 
>users cannot trust the administration that it 
>means what it says when it gives lip-service to 
>multi-stakeholder governance—and that has 
>ramifications that go even even deeper than this terrible TPP deal."

>ICANN: Just give us the keys to the internet – or the web will disintegrate
>Do what we say or the UN will take over, techies 
>walk away, cats and dogs living together
><http://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/2886>Kieren McCarthy
>Domain system overseer ICANN has embarked on a 
>campaign of fear and fuzzy logic in its latest 
>bid to seize control of the internet from the US 
>government without agreeing to limits on its power.
>The handover of the 
>IANA functions from Uncle Sam to ICANN was due 
>to happen last week, but has been set back a 
>year to 
>1, 2016 following procedural delays and extensive negotiations.
>Now, ICANN warns, unless the internet community 
>makes concessions on the controls that it wants 
>to place on the organization's Board, the 
>process could take even longer – and that could 
>lead to the end of ICANN itself, as well as the 
>United Nations taking over the internet.
>On a conference call this week between ICANN 
>Board members and the chairs of the committees 
>drawing up the IANA transition plan, one slide 
>caught people's attention. It was titled "5 
>Risks we face if the IANA Stewardship Transition 
>is Delayed/Fails," and they were:
>    * 
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/what-2012-02-25-en>ICANN's 
> community may fracture or fray slowly, becoming 
> divided, acrimonious, bitter – potentially 
> risking ICANN's stability, effectiveness, and 
> impacting the participation of global stakeholders.
>    * The technical operating communities using 
> <http://www.iana.org/about>IANA may go separate 
> ways, with the 
> <https://www.ietf.org/about/>IETF and the 
> Numbering communities choosing to take their 
> business elsewhere – ending the integrity of 
> the internet's logical infrastructure.
>    * Governments (encouraged by 
> <http://www.g77.org/doc/>G77) may lead an 
> effort starting this year during the WSIS 
> review to shift Internet Governance 
> responsibilities to a more stable and predictable inter-governmental platform.
>    * Key economies that shifted positions since 
> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/about>NTIA's 
> announcement in March 2014 may reverse their 
> support for "one Internet" logical infrastructure coordinated by ICANN.
>    * The resilience and effectiveness of the 
> multistakeholder model will be questioned by 
> those seeking solutions to the emerging 
> Internet Governance issues in the economic and 
> societal layer (e.g., cyber security, trade, 
> privacy, copyright protections, etc.).
>What's more, a second slide showed that unless 
>the internet community finalizes its plans by 
>December at the latest, the transition would in fact be delayed.
>It was intended as a blunt message urging haste, 
>but the first reactions to it by the skeptical 
>internet community were largely mocking.
>"Wow, that slide is a contentious parade of 
>horribles if ever I saw one!" said one 
>participant. Another noted: "I think the 
>doomsday scenarios are just a bit exaggerated. 
>We have to stop scaring people with the G77 
>boogeyman." Others chimed in with similar sentiments.
>Ah, that's why
>At the heart of the issue are changes that the 
>internet community wants to make to the 
>functioning of ICANN. Those changes would limit 
>the absolute authority current enjoyed by the 
>organization's staff and Board, and make them 
>subject to the overall will of the internet community.
>Such powers include the ability to fire 
>individual Board members, veto the 
>organization's budget, and force it to 
>reconsider decisions if a majority felt the wrong decision had been made.
>As you might expect, ICANN the corporation 
>doesn't much like the changes and so has been 
>fighting furiously to have them removed. Having 
>failed to persuade the internet community that 
>it didn't need such powers, last month the Board 
>refused to accept the mechanism by which such 
>powers would be enforced, namely the creation of 
>a "member" of the organization, which would lend the community legal rights.
>At an emergency meeting called to resolve their 
>differences, the Board's chair Steve Crocker 
>infuriated the community by 
>to accept the "single member" model – without 
>providing a clear explanation as to why – and 
>implied that he would rather stay under US 
>government control than have the Board's absolute power constrained.
>A week later, Crocker further antagonized the 
>community by sending an email on behalf of the 
>Board in which he also refused to accept even a 
>watered-down alternative to that model.
>"To be clear, the concerns that the Board raised 
>on the Sole Member model still apply to a 
>Designator model," he wrote. "The Designator 
>model still introduces a new legal structure 
>with powers that are intrinsically beyond the 
>structure we have been using ... This is 
>unproven territory and will require more detail 
>and time to understand and test the impact on 
>our bedrock multistakeholder balance."
>Instead, he proposed that "the Board could 
>commit to a future governance structure review 
>triggered by key factors" – in other words, punt 
>any actual change to some unspecified future date.
>'Shock and disappointment in this Board response'
>That response elicited some strong opinions from 
>the group that has been working for a year on 
>the proposals. "The Board has abused its role as 
>a decision-maker in this process. In effect, it 
>has sought to replace the open, public, 
>deliberative proposal development process with 
>its own definition of what the community 
>requires, and its own solution that can deliver 
>its evaluation of those requirements," responded one.
>"I share the shock and disappointment in this 
>Board response," said another. "I suppose it is 
>the natural reaction of any entity that holds 
>total power and risks losing some of that power 
>to behave in such a way, but it does show that 
>ICANN has not matured sufficiently to be cut 
>loose from oversight any time soon."
>In a stark note, the recipient of ICANN's first 
>"ICANN Multistakeholder Ethos Award" in 2014 
>questioned whether the Board's actions 
>undermined the organization itself. "If the 
>Board continues to overrule the multistakeholder 
>process, it will become ever harder to convince 
>people that this is a workable modality for decision making," she noted.
>A number of members also raised the fact that it 
>was Board actions both at the beginning of the 
>process and in recent weeks that have been behind much of the delay.
>If that wasn't bad enough, under pressure to 
>actually explain why the Board was refusing to 
>accept the key recommendation of the official 
>working group, first Crocker and then vice-chair 
>Bruce Tonkin argued that the ICANN community 
>should not be given the proposed level of 
>control over the Board because it was not 
>sufficiently representative of the broader internet community.
>"It is unclear that this would represent the 
>full multistakeholder community because we do 
>not know yet which SO/ACs will join now or 
>later. Moreover, the same community 
>accountability issues present in the Sole Member 
>are present in the Designator model," noted Crocker.
>Unsurprisingly, that comment was received 
>extremely badly, with a range of commenters 
>noting that the Board is elected by the exact 
>same ICANN community that it now argues is not 
>sufficiently representative to be given a veto power.
>"If the community is not reflective of global 
>Internet diversity then wouldn't the Board 
>members who are drawn from it be equally 
>non-representative? The logical outcome of this 
>criticism is that the Board is equally 
>disqualified from being the steward," queried one working group member.
>It's the governments!
>That observation led to immediate warnings from 
>ICANN Board members that this argument could be 
>used by the United Nations to argue that ICANN 
>lacked legitimacy, and so the internet's 
>functioning should be taken over by governments.
>And that of course leads back to the five bullet 
>points of fear that ICANN's Board pushed on the 
>internet community as a way of adding pressure 
>on them to capitulate to the Board's demands that its power not be constrained.
>Matters will come to a head at the organization 
>face-to-face meeting in Dublin starting next 
>Thursday, October 15, and running through to Saturday, October 24.
>Two big problems
>But despite the Board and staff's determined 
>efforts to avoid real accountability, two simple facts stand in their way.
>First, without a legal right to force ICANN to 
>act, there will be no way for the IANA contract 
>to be separated from ICANN at some future date.
>The whole point of the transition is to replace 
>the US government's role, and the one undeniable 
>power it has is the ability to withdraw the IANA 
>contract. Without a legal right, that withdrawal power cannot exist.
>Second, without the legal ability to constrain 
>the organization, the Board would be able to 
>move the entire organization from Los Angeles in 
>California to another city in another country 
>(Beijing? Moscow?) through a single vote and 
>there would be no way for the internet community to prevent it.
>The US Congress – which ultimately has to sign 
>off on the deal – is unlikely to see that possibility in a very positive light.
>At the moment, however, ICANN the corporation is 
>focused entirely on how to pressure the internet 
>community to pull out any recommendations that 
>would constrain its powers. And it is deploying 
>a hefty dose of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in an effort to make that happen.
>Once it achieves that goal, presumably ICANN 
>will then turn to how it gets Congress to agree 
>to give it free reign of the internet's naming and numbering systems. ®