Re: [iucg] [discuss] Conference: ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The Road to Sao Paulo, and Beyond, Singapore 21 March 2014

[Elisabeth Blanconil <[e-mail]>]

At 17:20 27/02/2014, John Curran wrote:
>On Feb 27, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Elisabeth Blanconil <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > No punishment but kind concern about the problem you reported 
> with our "VGNIC-speak".
>
>Hebe -
>
>   It might significantly improve understanding of those on the 1net discuss
>   list if the IUCG community could use existing ICANN and Internet governance
>   terminology for its input on the list.  If this isn't possible, feel free
>   to disregard, but presently the lack of specific suggestions using common
>   vernacular may be inhibiting actual communication of ideas.

John,

I understand that. The problem is that if these terms existed 
(actually if the concepts had not been politically banned by the 
"ICANNly correct" for commercial and TM/IP reasons) there would be 
not need for the /1net debate, the Internet Governance, as I pointed 
it out from Joe Sims, the guy who designed ICANN, not being the ICANN 
cup of tea.

Through its mission creep in the early 2000s ICANN has imposed itself 
as being "THE" Internet Governance. This is an obvious BUG that is to 
be fixed.

We know how to fix it since most of us use the internet for years 
without using anything from ICANN. This is not because we oppose 
ICANN, this is just that ICANN is just a VGNIC as others. And, that 
the DNS internet security, surety and stability as organized by ICANN 
(its sole role as per Joe Sims) are middle grade and dependent from a 
government. Things which we do not trust. We demand a better QoS.

There is a general need for users (Govs, Industry, IUsers, etc.) to 
improve the effilience of their Internet. This is the main technical 
role of the IG. The way we use the Internet without ICANN is better 
than the way that ICANN proposes. However the ICANN contribution as 
the leading VGNIC is certainly a plus. This is why the WSIS has 
called for enhanced cooperation initiatives. In addition we 
technically fear that the ICANN's attitude leads to a more complex 
technical situation where national, private and civil VGNs could 
become more difficult to document and hence to use. In particular we 
fear an instability of the IONS that would affect the e-business. We 
also want CCN VGNs to be quickly experimented and supported, as well 
as to see experiment develop in the semantic addressing area and 
build upon the Wikimedia experiment.

In a nutshell we perfectly understand that some people wants to keep 
their 1983 terminology, but we are afraid they will only discuss a 
1983 IG and not our IUser 2014 IG. This is why there are two options: 
to continue like Jefsey advocated, to help improving an informed 
technical use towards the initial second (multi technology) phase of 
the Internet, or - if this is less confusing for some - to say that 
we switch to a next network generation. This is exactly the same. It 
is a question of terminology and of centricity. Either there is an 
evolution from decentralized to distributed. Or we say the network is 
distributed (period!) and we support it with what currently exists. I 
would favor that. The problem is the addressing plan management. Are 
addresses linked to the topology or to the hosts? The solution is 
that ITU or China, or Liecheinstein say: "I take over an IPv6 portion 
and I manage it according to the network topology, period. Addresses 
are NEVER owned by Hosts".

Hebe