Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism?
Jefsey <jefsey@jefsey.com> Wed, 26 March 2014 18:36 UTC
Return-Path: <jefsey@jefsey.com>
X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com
(Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CC4F1A0354 for <iucg@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.631
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8,
IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54P1A1sC9RUs for
<iucg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by
ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E2B1A0339 for
<iucg@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [85.159.233.116] (port=37640 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by
host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from
<jefsey@jefsey.com>) id 1WSsgJ-0005g6-Ic; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:36:08 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 19:36:02 +0100
To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
From: Jefsey <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <7F11B8A9-988A-4CC1-B6C9-C96D756E39B0@istaff.org>
References: <20140326091244.818F921364D@smtp2.arin.net>
<7F11B8A9-988A-4CC1-B6C9-C96D756E39B0@istaff.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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:
jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/8WLA5Cm3fHGEVA9NlAFFP03QQxU
Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" <internetgovtech@iab.org>,
"discuss@1net.org List" <discuss@1net.org>, ianatransition@icann.org,
iucg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism?
X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: internet users contributing group <iucg@ietf.org>
List-Id: internet users contributing group <iucg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iucg>,
<mailto:iucg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iucg/>
List-Post: <mailto:iucg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iucg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg>,
<mailto:iucg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 18:36:13 -0000
X-Message-ID:
Message-ID: <20140418053225.2560.11406.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>
At 18:17 26/03/2014, John Curran wrote >JFC - > Lack of response does not indicate "general agreement" nor "no > one opposed"; > it simply indicates "lack of response". To refer to it > otherwise is disingenuous. Pretty obvious. But it obliges people to explain what they pretend to knowingly discuss. > However, I do have some good news, in that I will respond to > your proposed > MS definition (i.e. "It is to polycracy the equivalent of > monarchy to democracy. > Technically, MS proceeds from a root/server/client hierarchic > model") and note > that I believe it to be contrary to existing usage of the term > and otherwise without > merit. You can believe what you want as long as you document it. Every creed welcome: this is a HR. > (The good news being that now you _can_ summarize your responses > received, the result being "overwhelmingly opposed"...) Up to now this is (surprisingly) inexact. But I know, MSism would ceased to be a magic trick if it was investigated. Now, when a camailla invades an open public space it is not surprising that the real world majority is not welcome :-) May I remember you that we are discussing a matter where the world majority in Dubai has opposed your vision. Also that our minority has aggregated by loyalty around the now retiring NTIA, which has found a better strategy. One can therefore consider that the transfer to ICANN is its sacrifice to this new strategy. The USG has measured where was its best interest, and plays it very well. They let you drop. The problem is to know how one can reasonably reach a balanced transition. You do not help it in sticking to positions that the NTIA abandons to ICANN (with glorious words, I acknowledge it). You do not help in refusing (by despite? or unbelief of the change) that we reach out to you. > In keeping with the George's proposed etiquette or the 1net > discuss list, I shall > make the observation that our views are quite divergent, likely > irreconcilable, Correct, from your rigid point of view, at this time. Totally uncorrect from mine. You are part of a VGNIC structure. The largest one so far. But the time for VGNICs fair competition has come. Introducing competition does not means killing the incumbent. However it means for the incumbent not to block the new commers. Otherwise it will be sued (best) or opposed and will lose. I fully understand this is new to you, and it is difficult to accept (while it seems so unlikely) and adapt. You feel you are still the big one: this is true, but the NTIA has accepted that you are not the only one anymore. And the spirit of the law, and probably the jurisprudence, and the law once the Congress has understood the opportunity, is against your position. This deregulating datacommunications. Not my decision: the ITU vote for an increased regulation and the USG cute reponse. > and thus my constructive suggestion is that you find a mailing > list of those of > similar beliefs, and refine your ideas in that forum (I've > included the cc's on this > reply to aid in that process, but ask that you refrain from > cross posting in the > future, and simply use one forum of like-minded folks to > continue your efforts.) I thought you would be more MSist. The attempted trick is understandable, but is poor. We have an open mailing list established by the inculbent to convene a debate on MS-IG. We are two stakeholders. You for ARIN, depending on ICANN, me for VGNICs depending on IUsers. And all what you can tell me amount to say: "please I cannot resist, Dubai, Snowden, VGNs, the NTIA retirement, and now Marco Civil by our co-host, what next? Please leave me die in peace...". I will only do it by force for the whole world to see. We do not want you to die. We want you to behave as what you claim you are: a stakeholder. Not a monopoly component anymore, but a stand-alone stakeholder in our common enhanced cooperation. We just want you to adapt to the new reality of the legal rather than political US leadership strategy attempted by the NTIA. As loyal US allies, we are ready to help, but our priroities is to our nations, people and ourselves. If you do not want us, you will end irritating us! And we will be many, many more than you. With everyone his HomeRoot and SuperIANA. Cheers. jfc Cheers ! jfc
- [iucg] What is MSism? Jefsey
- Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism? Shatan, Gregory S.
- Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism? Michel Gauthier
- Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism? Shatan, Gregory S.
- Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism? John Curran
- Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism? Jefsey
- Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism? John Curran
- Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism? Michel Gauthier
- Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism? Michel Gauthier
- [iucg] What is the MSism's impact on IETF JFC Morfin
- Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism? Jefsey
- Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism? Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [iucg] [discuss] What is MSism? Jefsey