Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] SSAC Report on the IANA Functions contract

[JFC Morfin <[e-mail]>]

At 22:13 19/10/2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>Either way, though, the notion that voluntary standards bodies are 
>the authoritative parties vis-a-vis the Internet should carry over 
>into a post-NTIA world.

Dear Miles,

I understand and agree with your analysis (and I can innovatively 
explain it with scientific rigor), BUT that is provided the IETF 
technology is the only acceptable/possible digital network 
technology, and the way it is managed is agreed by everyone.

We know that this is not the case. Three points extensively 
documented by experience, analysis, books, documents of reference, 
etc. show it:

- the NTIA oversight is only an avatar of the 1977 initiated 
variation of the USG regulation of a universal service - that is 
still subsidized. The NTIA transition is only an adaptation of this 
regulation 40 years later on, taking into consideration the change of 
scale in use and locality.

- the internet architecture is blocked since 1983. This is the 
"status-quo" US strategy: IETF has never scaled above the first IEN 
48 motivation (a global TCP/IP catenet) and engaged in the second 
motivation (a TCP/IP Tymnet). It planned it, it did not do it, but 
the world is engaged in the process. This makes innovation an 
uncertain parameter. Lower layers may very well stay stable (probably 
not the way you see it, because there is no real "voluntary" SDO at 
these layers anymore, but along RFC 6852). The architecture is 
opening through the economically based technical competition among 
"global communities". Plural. This means that the "technical market 
power" (capacity to impose its standards by market influence) of 
DARPA, NSA, USCC is progressively affected by what can be called an 
"intelligent use by economic necessity".

- the digitalities' networks have three main strata: hardware, 
software, brainware. Tymnet, IANA, ICANN have demonstrated that the 
naming space rules the nets - and technology and politics are showing 
that this is at the three strata.

With the gTLDs mad project ICANN has killed its only advantage: 
clarity.They also have been unable to make the IETF keep the 
multilingual space (names and tags) efficient and clear.

As a result ICANN cannot help stabilizing innovation through names.
- Hardwware: IoT, NDN.
- Software: iDNs do not really work + MYCANN plugs-in.+ Rossetanet
- Brainware: names/languages is the brain's semantics communication's 
technology. ICANN and IETF are decades away of "brain names" and 
their semantic upper layer evolution. This is documented in 
ICANN/ICP-3: how to R&D a non-unique authoritatie root DNS.

Now, again, I played my wistleblower part. I will keep wistling 
through an appeal. But now I work.
Cheers.
jfc


jfc