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

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

My aim under this list and this important draft, is to make IAB and IETF
more involved in the influence of IANA, why only ICANN is involved to role
the IANA function. IAB with the framework can do better with the community
support. However, I still did not complete my review, but you input helps
me thanks.

AB

On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Jefsey <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  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.
>
>