[governance] US Congress & JPA

[jefsey]

At 05:21 10/08/2009, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>When I read ICANN's plan for splattering itself it was pretty clear 
>that the intent was to abandon most ties with the US except as 
>necessary to maintain existing contracts.  It was a bizarre system 
>of corporations in various places with unique laws in which it 
>seemed that the board of ICANN-US would also occupy seats on each 
>ICANN-elsewhere.  And registrars and registries would make contracts 
>with the nearby ICANN-somewhere under the laws of that 
>-somewhere.  It would be a mess of divine proportions that would 
>totally frustrate even the most vacuous Enron-like conception of 
>accountability.

Karl,
I must say I dropped interest in ICANN "Internet Governance" details 
for a while due to more important matters on the "Internet Adminance" 
(administrative and technical governance) user's side. You seem to 
refer to a published ICANN's plan? I feel I missed that plan - or are 
you referring to the many verbose and diffuse documents they publish 
to make believe they are of any real use in being a real pain?

IMHO ICANN only exists due to the JPA. Because, through the JPA the 
current Internet presentation default it "manages" (I used 
"presentation" in the architectural presentation layer meaning) is 
the one supported by the USG (cybersquatting act), NTIA (e-commerce) 
and ISOC. This is based on the constrained stability (moreover the 
misunderstood DNSSEC threat is used) of the single authoritative 
root. China, Russia, India, Europe accept, restraining their digital 
sovereignty in exchange for this US (not ICANN, nor IETF) protected 
stability. So, do their users. So do ITU, ISO, UNESCO, etc.

Should ICANN quit the USG digital umbrella, it would enter 
competition. The first Internet area to react would probably be the 
USA, creating their own ICANN replacement to manage the US Internet 
presentation based upon the "US" DNS Class including all the 
currently existing "IN" class TLDs and ignoring the new TLDs sold on 
the ICANN root. It would be foolishly immature not to do it. The same 
for others areas and groups of users, starting with the TLDA class. 
What will ICANN do once in Geneva in front of 65.000 different 
legitimate DNS and millions of user domain name "ibm.com" stably 
resolving millions different IP addresses (This is the _real_ 
Internet we deal with under finishing Microsoft Windows protection)? 
Have a round the corner lunch with WIPO people?

This is why at france at large and the iucg at ietf.org, as several other 
do, we openly work on the natural architectural reading of the 
existing Internet (Interplus) to transparently support this natural 
evolution of the usage of the _existing_ Internet, DNS, browsers, 
email agents, etc., and to extend the Internet itself to active 
content (what Web.2.0 tries to implement at the application level). 
Lawyers and academics missed the very matter at hand: what the real 
Internet rustic technology permits but does not manage. Security, 
addresses, multilingualism, routing, privacy, control, etc. are not 
its only big lacks.

The world has agreed a few years ago now how to tackle these problems 
and their emerging saliencies and further adminance : through 
enhanced cooperations. ICANN has paid a lot to delay this. It may be 
very happy in a few months from now to join such cooperations over 
the DNS, addressing, IP, multilingualisation, etc.

"Yet it turns!".
jfc






____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance