Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ...

[Eric Dierker]

I think all would agree that governance regarding the Internet really requires a two prong result. First would be technical "RFC" protocals that should be established as standards recognized and generally accepted. The second should be the governance of peoples and rights.  What we have seen go so terribly wrong in ICANN is a failure to recognize ability and to comprhensively recognize and develop human resources in the two distinct fields of expertise. 
I do not hire an engineer to arrange, cater and host my cocktail parties or care for and administer aid to ailing children.  I do not hire professors of law and sociologists to be mechanics on my 2010 mercedes.(it has 1,000xs more computing power than my 2001 pc)
 
We do not elect scientists. We should not appoint Chairman. We do not reach consensus on positive and negative currents. We should not just accept copyrights.
Until we are free to distinguish between the two and commonly seperate the functions we can not recognize the qualities of both and resolve issues as to integration.

--- On Wed, 9/23/09, jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:


From: jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ...
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com>, governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Dr. Francis MUGUET" <muguet at mdpi.net>
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 10:34 AM


Dear Mc,

At 07:28 22/09/2009, McTim wrote:
> it opens a can of worms in terms of DNS load.  Avri is correct, it
> needs much research and IETF work.

Yes. Today, I think the only IETF related class and presentation research effort is carried on the iucg at ietf.org mailing list. The IUCG is an internet lead user (@large) effort that strives to help people _using_ the internet better, while more generaly the IETF mission is to make the internet _work_ better. This research is carried for years (along ICP-3 suggestions). It is at a  cross road because IUCG said that we will make our interplus answer 100% compatible with existing IETF propositions. The most important IETF move in that area is IDNA. The recommendation of IETF was, I think, reasonably documented in a mail Vint Cerf sent to me, to push in that direction in a reasonable way.

The problems are that this IUCG @large effort is opposed by the ALAC, also that classes and presentations are very similar to the security issue: they are architecturally permitted to create chaos yet nothing protects from them except ignoring them. So, addressing them demands either a clean sheet new internet internal architecture and governance, or a better understanding of the network model and intergovernance, the addition of new layers, and a ambiant mechanism to protect ourselves from real chaos.

On the IETF side, this is what the WG/IDNABIS is about. IDNs would have been addressed by the IGF (not ICANN as too limited, or ITU as a patch) in minutes should the Internet presentation layer and classes being more actively understood and protected.

On the IUCG side, this is what the Internet PLUS (plugged layers user system) is also about. At this time the two systems (IDNA and IDNAPLUS) are not technically very far apart (only a few words). Yet they still seem conceptually separated because the engineers of the IETF, who want to support every user script still do not want to support them the way the people use them. Because the IETF English is for 25 years case insensitive, the world should stop using case sensitive scripts. Happily this is not technically difficult to address and everything has been well prepared by the WG/IDNABIS document set after WG/LC review (the IUCG IDNA working site is http://wikidna.org).

> Yesterdays report RSSAC tells us
> that we must go slow on adding to the root complexity and size, as
> implementing v6, DNSSEC, iDNs and new TLDs have a multiplicative
> effect on the rootzone and DNS traffic.

Do not forget Web.2.0. The real issue is that the Internet is still supported by a real root and a pseudo single root server system. The emerging reality is a virtual root and a distributed heterarchic server support. ICANN has called for years for this to be community explored and tested (ICP-3). IETF has declined the invitation. We did it for two years and build from this experimentation.

> the IETF builds the protocols and the IANA assigns the protocols,
> including DNS classes. http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters,
> so I'm not getting where you think the "outside of ICANN" competition
> comes in to play.

The outside of ICANN world is the users' world. Us. None of us is bound to ICANN except by the feeling of uninformed people that ICANN has something to do with the fact that the Internet works. The real service of ICANN is to hide where the real problem is. The problem is that we (users) will blow ICANN out if we want to reasonably protect our own netship system. Because the solution is not DNSSEC, the solution is for us to run our own fool proof, secure, and fast DNS solution including our own root, based upon our selected TLD set, on non recursive servers.

> In any case, why are you going to the ITU for funding/audience?  If
> you want to change a DNS standard, the IETF is the place to work.
> There is a DNSextensions WG.

This is not the proper WG. The job is an IAB job if carried through network architecture and engineering. It is an IRTF job to prepare the IAB guidance. It aslo is a userside job with immediate user protection as a target. Francis went to the ITU because they are the single most concerned body. I created the IUCG with the help of several IETF leaders, once they identified that I would have to go with the ITU if they continued to ignore lead users, as the ICANN still does.

One cannot rebuild the entire Internet governance alone, but I am afraid that since ICANN also blocks the enhanced cooperation mechanism, I will still need to re-act ATLARGE (http://atlarge.org) to get the IUCG the end user backing that it needs for inputs and testing.

> It seems that some want to keep alive the ITU vs. ICANN struggle that
> Meryem asked about the other day.

This is not so much an ITU vs. ICANN struggle, but an ICANN dominance attempt where it should be our common secretariat. The first lesson I draught from IUCG is that no one will really understand the way the Internet works as long as we talk of "users". The world is distributed and made of "masters" of which the system is technically an internet "client". This is what the WSIS' demand about a people's centric vision means. Server centric and network centric schemes do not fullt fit. Providers are to be server centric and ISP are to be network centric. We are master centric. This is something we know from Einstein. This is also the kind of tussle that Dave Clark (founder of IETF and GENI) recently discussed as a new key reality of the Internet architecture.

Best.
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090923/f19b1d0c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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