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

[Jefsey <[e-mail]>]

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.shtml 
is 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