Re: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

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, [e-mail]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>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.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: [e-mail]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>
> From: [e-mail]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>
> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:58:09 -0700
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>
> >
>
> 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.
>
>