<div dir="ltr"><dl>
<dd><font color="#222222"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size:9pt">There
seems to be an elephant in the room again, which everyone is
avoiding. Perhaps the elephant is better imagined as a black hole,
in the sense that it marks an absence rather than a presence. There
is no more trust. We have no trust for one another, let alone trust
for “them”. Please refer to the comment from Vint Cerf, from
this string, quoted below.</font></font></font></dd><dd>
<font color="#222222"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size:9pt">At
21:09 13/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote:</font></font></font></dd><dd>
<font color="#222222"> <font face="arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size:9pt">I
would recall that Jon Postel was largely left to his own resources
during his tenure (i.e. the USG did not intervene until he tested
the change from one master root zone server to another that
triggered a WH reaction). Jon was, of course, a key player within
the Internet development community and guided by and trusted by his
contemporaries.</font></font></font></dd><dd>
<font color="#222222"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size:9pt">The
other thing that is missing is truth, in the sense of truth as
reliable information. Please refer to the final question under 4
below.</font></font></font></dd><dd>
<font color="#222222"><font face="arial"><font>On
14 April 2014 03:44, Jefsey <</font></font><a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com" target="_blank"><font color="#1155cc"><font face="arial"><font>jefsey@jefsey.com</font></font></font></a><font face="arial"><font>></font></font><font face="arial, sans-serif"><font> </font></font><font face="arial"><font>wrote:</font></font><font face="arial, sans-serif"><font>
</font></font></font>
</dd><dd>
<font color="#222222"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size:9pt">2.
from history and architectonical thinking does the Internet need
sovereignty?<br>3. if yes which kind of sovereignty? legal, moral,
technical, societal, geographical, cultural, ethical, military,
securitary, economical, etc.<br>4. which kind of apparatus does that
sovereignty needs? imperial, aristocratic, diktyocratic, democratic,
polycratic, by stake owners, status holders, stakeholders,
multitude, people. What is the commonly accepted meaning of each of
these terms? </font></font></font>
</dd><dd>
<font color="#222222"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size:9pt">A
satisfactory answer to this question might move us towards a
re-creation of trust.</font></font></font></dd><dd>
<font color="#222222"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size:9pt">However
we need to remember that in a commercial system predicated on money,
the ethos, the basic values, are different. Perhaps we are expecting
as automatic the appearance of values that we may espouse – trust,
truth, human rights – when the system we were accustomed to has
changed underneath us and those values are no longer relevant?</font></font></font></dd><dd>
<font color="#222222"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size:9pt">If
trust cannot be re-established, then there seems to be little chance
for rapprochement among the (undefined) stakeholders, however many
they may be.</font></font></font></dd><dd><font color="#222222"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size:9pt"><br></font></font></font></dd><dd><font color="#222222"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size:9pt">Deirdre</font></font></font></dd>
</dl><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 14 April 2014 03:44, Jefsey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com" target="_blank">jefsey@jefsey.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
At 01:45 14/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Michel stop baiting. I did not
say exclusively. I said these technical ideas are in scope and therefore
could be considered. </blockquote><br>
Michel,<br><br>
Vint does not want to plainly respond to your good questions: however he
eventually said "could" where you tested for
"should". Mike Roberts has had the guts to answer: "So
far, the responses on this list and elsewhere are not encouraging".
Their and my common reason is simple: the NTIA question is biased and
leads to an aporetic dilemma: "do you want the Internet to be
American along our plan B or your plan C?" <br><br>
The reality is also very simple: the international catenet, under IETF
logic or not, is our's. The question is to which kind of sovereignty does
that "our's" resolve? Michael Gurstein is correct: the question
of the NTIA is not only about the internet, but about the "internet
world", i.e. our world, the world's governance, i.e. the world
sovereignty. <br><br>
Let disambiguate the root of the question (keeping in mind that it is
iterative, since it concerns a systemic evolution).<br><br>
1. what is the internet? Why is it so much associated with the DNS? What
is the internet we want? as long as we do not agree on these points
discussions are futile.<br>
2. from history and architectonical thinking does the Internet need
sovereignty?<br>
3. if yes which kind of sovereignty? legal, moral, technical, societal,
geographical, cultural, ethical, military, securitary, economical,
etc.<br>
4. which kind of apparatus does that sovereignty needs? imperial,
aristocratic, diktyocratic, democratic, polycratic, by stake owners,
status holders, stakeholders, multitude, people. What is the commonly
accepted meaning of each of these terms?<br>
5. what is the best common interest in a closed global system of
interests as now is the internet, where only win/win or lose/lose
situations are possible.<br><br>
Then and only then,<br>
- one can discuss the questions posed by the NTIA: is the world
sovereignty to be localized (i.e. to some specific State [USA], to
Nation-States [as UN or ITU outside of US control, or GAC embedded in an
US registered ICANN?]).<br>
- one can know how to follow the ICANN position which is (current
Internet Coordination Policy # 3) which does not mention NTIA and calls
for experimentation:<br><br>
"ICANN's mandate to preserve stability of the DNS [...] means that
ICANN continues to adhere to community-based processes in its decisions
regarding the content of the authoritative root. Within its current
policy framework, ICANN can give no preference to those who choose to
work outside of these processes and outside of the policies engendered by
this public trust. None of this precludes experimentation done in a
manner that does not threaten the stability of name resolution in the
authoritative DNS. Responsible experimentation is essential to the
vitality of the Internet. Nor does it preclude the ultimate introduction
of new architectures that may ultimately obviate the need for a unique,
authoritative root. But the translation of experiments into production
and the introduction of new architectures require community-based
approaches, and are not compatible with individual efforts to gain
proprietary advantage."<br><br>
At this stage, the NTIA aporetic proposition is an "individual
effort to gain proprietary advantage" to say the least.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Apr 13, 2014 7:00 PM,
"Michel Gauthier"
<<a href="mailto:mg@telepresse.com" target="_blank">mg@telepresse.com</a>> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>At 23:48 13/04/2014, Vint Cerf
wrote:<blockquote type="cite">
<dd>part of the process initiated by ICANN has the scope to look at
additional technical safeg uards to limit the actions of IANA and the TLD
operators to those actions both agree to.</dd></blockquote>
</dd><dd>Dear Vint,<br>
</dd><dd>I just want to be sure I do not misunderstand you, because this is
very important to everyone.<br>
</dd><dd>You mean that you consider that the ICANN scope is the ***only*** set
of actions that is to be undertaken, with no additional experimentation
if not within the limits aproved by ICANN. Noother backup option to be
experimented. The internet users are to 100% rely upon and to 100% trust
ICANN. In other words that your entire internet project is now to
***limit*** itself to the ICANN scope and its internal safeguards?<br>
</dd><dd>This in spite of the ICANN/ICP-3 own recommendations?<br>
</dd><dd>What if NTIA disapproves ICANN?<br>
</dd><dd>M G<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<dd>v<br>
<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Michel Gauthier
<<a href="mailto:mg@telepresse.com" target="_blank">mg@telepresse.com</a>> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>Dear Vint,
</dd><dd>Thank you to reminding us that no one has ***ever*** changed a
national or international communication system without being
"sponsored" by a soverign authority (USG [FCC or NTIA] or
monopolies): Mokapetris and Postel have not introduced any change in the
file they received..
</dd><dd>So, now you state: "it is possible to fashion sufficient
accountability and transparency mechanisms as well as additional
interlocks on root zone changes to eliminate the need for an
institutional replacement for NTIA's oversight". Don't you think it
is a big responsibility? Without any experimentation for the
mechanism you only guarantee the possibility.
</dd><dd>What do you think of those who want at least to experiment a back-up?
</dd><dd>M G
</dd><dd>At 21:09 13/04/2014, Vint Cerf
wrote:<blockquote type="cite">
<dd>Seun,
</dd><dd>there are two separations in the present situation: NTIA as contract
holder and ICANN as contractor and the further segregation of IANA as a
distinct entity within the ICANN framework. IANA is isolated from the
production of policy although i has to follow and execute policies
developed in the ICANN process and that are relevant to the IANA
responsibilities. One question on the table is whether the IANA functions
require the kind of NTIA oversight that has been in place since 1998. I
would recall that Jon Postel was largely left to his own resources during
his tenure (i.e. the USG did not intervene until he tested the change
from one master root zone server to another that triggered a WH
reaction). Jon was, of course, a key player within the Internet
development community and guided by and trusted by his contemporaries. As
many on these lists know, I believe it is possible to fashion sufficient
accountability and transparency mechanisms as well as additional
interlocks on root zone changes to eliminate the need for an
institutional replacement for NTIA's oversight.Ä€
</dd><dd>I appreciate your efforts to try to keep the discussion moving in
constructive directions.
</dd><dd>vint
</dd><dd>On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Seun Ojedeji
<<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>
> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>Hello Milton,
</dd><dd>On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Milton L Mueller
<<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>> As Chip Sharp points out, there is a contractual requirement for
IANA staff to not
</dd><dd>> be involved in policy development (other than to respond to
questions), but that
</dd><dd>> is different than requiring the IANA Functions operator to be
separated from ICANN.
</dd><dd>OK, so you want to play semantic games. Look, everyone involved in
this discussion has noted multiple times that ICANN currently has
_functional_ separation, via C.2.5 and other requirements. Once that
contractual requirement is gone, the issue is how is that separation
maintained. Many Ā believe structural separation will be requuired.
This was a point made in our original paper back on March 3. Thanks for
advancing the debate.<br><br>
</dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></blockquote></dd></dl>
</dd></blockquote></dd></dl>
<dd>What is functional and structural separation within the context of
this discussion?. I understand that by contract the IANA function itself
requires a separation on its own. The fact that it has a separate
department dedicated to it, make it a structural separation within ICANN.
I don't think structuring should always have to do with setting up
something outside of existing organisation. (as i have always pointed out
since the IGP proposal was released)
</dd><dd>So you have pointed out the right issue; which is to discuss
"how to maintain the current separation" (that is already
structural and functional)
</dd><dd>Nevertheless as usual, i am open to be convinced on what aspect i may
have missed. ;)
</dd><dd>Thanks
</dd><dd>Regards
<dl>
<dd>_______________________________________________
</dd><dd>ianatransition mailing list
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org" target="_blank">ianatransition@icann.org</a>
</dd><dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition</a><br>
</dd></dl></dd></blockquote>
<dd><font color="#888888">--
</font></dd><dd><font color="#888888">
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<dl>
<dd>Seun Ojedeji,
</dd><dd>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
</dd><dd>web:Ā Ā ÄâÄ€ÂÂ
<a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a>
</dd><dd>Mobile: <a href="http://??" target="_blank">+2348035233535</a>
</dd><dd>alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453" target="_blank">
</a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">
seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a></dd></dl></font></dd> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________
</dd><dd>ianatransition mailing list
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org" target="_blank">ianatransition@icann.org</a>
</dd><dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition</a><br>
</dd><dd>_______________________________________________
</dd><dd>ianatransition mailing list
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org" target="_blank">ianatransition@icann.org</a>
</dd><dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition</a></dd>
_______________________________________________<br>
ianatransition mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org" target="_blank">ianatransition@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition</a>
</div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
</div></div>