<html>
<body>
Phillip,<br>
I interspred comments in your very good post, as a contribution to a
review of the real situation and what is to engage to complement the 1NET
I* coalition in areas it does not covers. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b>At 20:11 20/11/2013, Phillip
Hallam-Baker wrote:</b><br>
The fundamental problem of Internet governance is that the real
stakeholders can't actually show up. If they did there would be three
billion of them. So what we have instead is a large number of different
entities that each represent themselves as stakeholders but are really
proxies for the stakeholders they represent<b>.</blockquote> <br>
</b>Yes. This is why I think the only possibility for them to be
represented is to be technical, i.e. through CS SDOs publishing
specifications and standardized practices and contributing to the common
normative process. In a running code world, one votes through machine
interconnections. <br>
<br>
This is something that Russ Housley helped me to set-up with the
IUCG@IETF (<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki">http://iucg.org/wiki</a>) but I
feel quite alone in supporting. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">ICANN is positive as the
management appears to see the opportunity to escape the current system
which makes ICANN accountable to and potentially under the direct control
of the US government. The question that has not been answered to date is
who ICANN would be accountable to instead and what meaningful options
would exist for consequences should ICANN not meet
expectations.</blockquote><b> <br>
</b>From Lynn StAmour’s inputs to the “advisory council” (see another
post of mine) this is clearly to an MS mechanism among the I*
organizations. However this mechanism is unclear as the advisory council
does not seem published and the list of its officers is not updated
(<a href="http://isoc.org/wp/ac/officers/">
http://isoc.org/wp/ac/officers/</a>). <br>
<br>
From the list of ISOC members
(<a href="http://www.internetsociety.org/get-involved/join-community/organisations-and-corporations/list-members">
http://www.internetsociety.org/get-involved/join-community/organisations-and-corporations/list-members</a>
) one sees that users are not involved except as global community
“markets”.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Reaction to the proposed
conference in IETF circles appears to be purely defensive. Several
parties have suggested using the process as a mechanism for agenda
denial, spinning out the process endlessly to ensure that nothing is ever
done and the status quo prevails. That might be a good strategy if either
the status quo were acceptable or there were no technical proposals that
threaten to change the character of the status quo.</blockquote><b><br>
</b>I suggest that there are at least three status quos:<br><br>
- Vint Cerf's "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". This only
means that we (people) do not scale.<br>
- the political "statUS-quo" which addresses the "ICANN
and IAB (etc.) accountability to who?" issue: OpenStand and
Montevideo replace the US by the I* society (i.e. the ISOC sponsors,
affiliates and ICANN + collateral IEEE, W3C and RIRs)<br>
- the technical "status quo" that you are discussing that I
fear to be subject to RFC 3869 objections (I just purchased your book to
read it this WE to understand what you are proposing).<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The status quo is not acceptable
because the net is not secure against cyber-attack and because it is
widely abused as a medium of international criminal activity and because
the world is rapidly outgrowing the IPv4 address space.<br><br>
The IETF has failed to deploy IPv6 or security infrastructure for the
Internet because it either lacks the key stakeholders whose participation
is essential to make such systems work or has actively driven them away.
<br><br>
Deployment of technology infrastructure is difficult because
infrastructure only has value if it is widely supported. The transition
from IPv4 to IPv6 requires existing Internet providers to make a large
capital investment that will mostly benefit providers in other countries
or new competitors in their own markets.<br><br>
In economic terms, using IPv4 is Pareto optimal for most of the parties
who would have to invest in a transition. Some parties will have to
absorb a cost so that other parties can benefit. Clever technology can
reduce the cost of transition but can't remove it entirely. But in
certain situations, governments can unlock such deployment deadlocks with
just the possibility of using their regulatory powers. It makes little
sense for an operator to invest an additional $X in IPv6 technology this
year if they believe that demand for IPv6 will be insufficient to justify
the expense within the equipment's lifetime. But the possibility that
support for IPv6 might be required by government regulation is more than
sufficient rationale.</blockquote> <br>
Yes. Since I have not read your book yet: <br>
<br>
- what do you think of LISP? <br>
- would there not be a secure “Internet 2.0” package of significant
interest, the deployment of which could permit the consideration of a
world “IPv6 tax" economy? As a user (not as an operator) what more
does IPv6 bring me? I have suggested that it could help DNS security but
it seems that I am wrong or that no one is interested.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">So rather than rejecting
government participation outright, I welcome it. In fact it is the reason
I came to the US in the first place.<br><br>
While the US government does have monarchical control of the Internet, it
is a constitutional rather than an absolute monarch. Any attempt to
exercise the theoretical powers is likely to cause them to swiftly
collapse. In its role as constitutional monarch, the US has appointed
ICANN to act as Prime Minister. The US is not expected to intervene
unless it becomes clear that there is a clear necessity to do
so.</blockquote><br>
Very good assessment. <br><br>
* You might add that ISOC is acting as a Crown Council trying to enlarge
itself to a Congress in acting as a leading kernel.<br>
* without forgetting the "America, rule the net!"
doctrine.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">In the case of the US a faction
in the Congress has recently shut down the government for two weeks and
threatened to default on government debt over. The possibility of
overreach is real and even if there is no imminent likelihood of an
Internet constitutional crisis, one is almost certain to occur within the
next fifty years.</blockquote><br>
I am more pessimistic over "the BUG", i.e. the architectonical
banning of uses on a global basis that cannot be controlled by ... Jon
Postel. This is "America rules the net". The issue is not so
much "America" (China's request for
"deamericanization") but the "rule" which implies an
attempt for governance unicity, while networking should only mean a
concordance unity.<br><br>
This has led to one addressing, one protocol, one naming, one IG, etc.
Let’s start Alejandro's list with "not ONE network"; this
addresses Jeremy's opposition. For example, why also retain a ONE
dimension TCP data space? Spying multiple channels of active content
could be more complex than a single one of passive content.<br><br>
Has the time come to incrementally free ourselves from the father? The
networks of the network of networks? Let’s not confuse the network and
its technical use, and both of them with our general informatics usages,
any more. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">A better frame in which to view
the problem is to insist on technical controls that allow the powers of
the constitutional monarch to be further diluted by sharing them so that
the Internet is not vulnerable to defection by a single government or
institution.</blockquote><br>
Permit me a second metaphor: we face the seas that, until now, we
considered and managed as rivers.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
PS. I am personally interested in two different areas that innovatively
complement one another:<br><br>
- the internet incremental evolution (rather than disruptive revolution),
or actually fundamental innovation (using the acquired experience to
review the architectonical choices).<br>
- and its open use. <br>
<br>
OpenUse means that the network is made as transparent/neutral as
possible, with a "0net" impact:<br><br>
- I understand that 1NET is dedicated to the Internet Governance.<br>
- I, therefore, am considering a parallel and cooperating 0net initiative
dedicated to independence from the network and its constitutional foreign
monarchs. Documenting and calling for free (as in the free from any
market, technical or political monopoly meaning) digital rights, use, and
code. <br>
<br>
This is why I am dedicated to personal digital empowerment, which is
perhaps the complementary point of view that you are calling for.
<br><br>
1. The IAB Chair helped me to establish the IUCG@IETF mailing list
(<a href="http://iucg.org">http://iucg.org</a>/wiki) to welcome the
internet users contributions and liaise with the out of end to end IETF
scope, fringe to fringe issues
(<a href="http://iutf.org">http://iutf.org</a>/wiki). However, I played
it low key lacking resources but mostly because of my fear of introducing
additional confusion and benefitting crime. This is why I am really
interested in yourbook.<br><br>
2. The ISOC Chair asked to propose a solution in my ISOC level appeal
concerning:<br><br>
- the publication of RFC 6852 without explaining how it fits with RFC
3869 and 3935.<br><br>
- and (as per RFC 2026) the way IETF and IAB could only respond to that
appeal, which shows the inability of the OpenStand paradigm principles to
address global community conflicts. <br><br>
I will do it as soon as possible, i.e. when the
OpenStand/Montevideo/1NET/I* CEOs three years meetings aftermath has
clarified enough. <br><br>
<br>
Mainly, the problem with the ISOC project, as I perceive it, is
that:<br><br>
* the mission is to be corrected: to promote the open development,
evolution, [] use [and usage] of the Internet for the benefit [which one,
how?] of all people of the world.<br><br>
* for years, as an individual ISOC member (i.e. a CS member), I have
failed to understand which ISOC Trustee represents me. actually the 22
july 2013 By-Laws state: "Individual members shall not have any
voting rights with respect to the Society. Other rights of individual
members, if any, may be specified by resolution of the Board of
Trustees.". They can pay and shut their mouth.<br><br>
<br>
1NET might be a solution embryo. However, as long as it does not
differentiate the technical middle use of the internet end to end
structural resources and the common fringe to fringe usage by people, it
will impeach an intra-technical dialog over an
unclear/unfinished/politically restrained architectonical thinking. This
prevents the world from having any appeal solution other than (possibly
detrimental) digital revolutions (e.g. NATs, China’s DNs, alt-roots) and
instabilities that can only benefit crime.<br>
<br>
All of this shows that the “people and people” P&P WSIS model is
still confronted by a master/slave (engineer/end user –
corporate/customer) model with no esthetic of reference other than market
viability. <br>
<br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>These are minimal issues to consider if 1NET wishes
to help propositions that will be (1) credible, (2) trusted, and (3)
accepted. </body>
</html>