<html>
<body>
At 10:57 23/10/2013, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I haven't had a chance to write
about the technical community meeting that took place at lunchtime today,
but it felt (to me) like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are
forming a new coalition that will create a "grassroots"
campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the primacy of
"the" multi-stakeholder model against
"government-centric" models. The summit has been
downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but just a "meeting",
and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not be to create
solutions. </blockquote><br>
Jeremy,<br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>Good! You saw what all this about: making the
Internet work along private sector, technically correct solutions that
are framed by RFC 6852 in response to RFC 3869 along RFC 3935 guidelines.
Governments and Civil Society are out of the scope. Multilateral
organizations outside of the ISOC, IETF, W3C, Unicode, and IEEE are
subject to review. The family extends to the supporting Telcos. The main
target is the incremental innovation-statUS-quo, and the main innovation
catalyst is (as per RFC 3869) the US procurement (in particular the USCC
- Cyber Command) which permits Governments to discuss cyber-weapons
control.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Chris Disspain stressed that the
meeting is "not the end game", and that "we seem to have
the reins of that meeting, we need to keep hold of those
reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it was like
the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role for the
technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally misplaced and
ill-advised.</blockquote><br>
Chris Disspain
(<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/disspain.htm">
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/disspain.htm</a>) is not a techie,
but a very efficient politicans and manager. His project (as I understand
it for years) is to fund ICANN with the vanityTLDs and this way to be
able to sustain the ICANN and IANA globalization. This will most probably
fail, but is quite helpful for deterring a premature reshaping of the USG
leadership landscape. He will leave ICANN next year. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">If the goal is to achieve an
open, inclusive, and participatory debate, more is needed to ensure
meaningful civil society participation.</blockquote><br>
This is not the aim! It can only be a side effect.<br><br>
Let get real. The aim is to provide an internet solution globally with an
acceptable ROI. Otherwise, the civil society participation will be
meaningless since there will be no more internet. The only thing anyone
will listen to is a rationale showing why "your approach decreases
the ROI, and mine increases it". <br><br>
IMHO the whole project is dangerous for the Internet stability as soon as
ICANN is involved. This because ICANN is an expense to fund and has no
technical use, except as an IANA secretary with a USG blessing. ICANN
functionally opposes what they claim to strive for. This is pure
astroturf. They want to oppose government national monopolies in
replacing them with the ICANN global market monopoly. Their reasonable
strategy seems to look like they are independent from the NTIA (after
E-Snowden - before it was a good sales pitch to impose DNSSEC), behave as
a TLD/Registrars Union, and to unite (not reunite) with ISOC. This
appears to be what is explored through the "de facto Internet
Consortium". This can only “work” under USG protection.<br><br>
Best,<br>
jfc<br><br>
I have used your inputs in
<a href="http://bramsummit.org/index.php?title=Civil_Society_pov_on_OCITIG">
http://bramsummit.org/index.php?title=Civil_Society_pov_on_OCITIG</a>. If
you want to put your name on this or review the text you are welcome to
register as a contributor.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>