<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Well said Deirdre</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=williams.deirdre@gmail.com
href="mailto:williams.deirdre@gmail.com">Deirdre Williams</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:13 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=governance@lists.igcaucus.org
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">Internet Governance</A> ; <A
title=jefsey@jefsey.com href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com">Jefsey</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] Re: [IANAtransition] Redlined Scoping
Document</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<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><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><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><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><FONT color=#222222><FONT face=arial>On 14 April 2014 03:44, Jefsey
<</FONT><A href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com" target=_blank><FONT
color=#1155cc><FONT face=arial>jefsey@jefsey.com</FONT></FONT></A><FONT
face=arial>></FONT><FONT face="arial, sans-serif"> </FONT><FONT
face=arial>wrote:</FONT><FONT face="arial, sans-serif"> </FONT></FONT>
<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><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><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><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><FONT color=#222222><FONT face="arial, sans-serif"><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><BR></FONT></FONT></FONT>
<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="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<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>Dear Vint,<BR>
<DD>I just want to be sure I do not misunderstand you, because this is
very important to everyone.<BR>
<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>This in spite of the ICANN/ICP-3 own recommendations?<BR>
<DD>What if NTIA disapproves ICANN?<BR>
<DD>M G<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DD>v<BR><BR><BR>
<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>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>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>What do you think of those who want at least to experiment a
back-up?
<DD>M G
<DD>At 21:09 13/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DD>Seun,
<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>I appreciate your efforts to try to keep the discussion moving
in constructive directions.
<DD>vint
<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>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>> be involved in policy development (other than to
respond to questions), but that
<DD>> is different than requiring the IANA Functions operator
to be separated from ICANN.
<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>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>Nevertheless as usual, i am open to be convinced on what aspect i may
have missed. ;)
<DD>Thanks
<DD>Regards
<DL>
<DD>_______________________________________________
<DD>ianatransition mailing list
<DD><A href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org"
target=_blank>ianatransition@icann.org</A>
<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><FONT
color=#888888>------------------------------------------------------------------------
<DL>
<DD>Seun Ojedeji,
<DD>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
<DD>web:Ā Ā ÄâĀ <A
href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng" target=_blank>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</A>
<DD>Mobile: <A href="http:///??" target=_blank>+2348035233535</A>
<DD>alt email:<A href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng"
target=_blank>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</A></DD></DL></FONT><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DD>_______________________________________________
<DD>ianatransition mailing list
<DD><A href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org"
target=_blank>ianatransition@icann.org</A>
<DD><A href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition"
target=_blank>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition</A><BR>
<DD>_______________________________________________
<DD>ianatransition mailing list
<DD><A href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org"
target=_blank>ianatransition@icann.org</A>
<DD><A href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition"
target=_blank>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition</A>
_______________________________________________<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>
</DD></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> </DIV>-- <BR>“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but
knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 </DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>You received
this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<BR>To be removed from the list,
visit:<BR>
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing<BR><BR>For all other list information and
functions, see:<BR>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance<BR>To edit your profile and to find
the IGC's charter, see:<BR>
http://www.igcaucus.org/<BR><BR>Translate this email:
http://translate.google.com/translate_t<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>