[governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN

[JFC Morfin]

John,

the problem is of historic origin. The RIR regional concept for what
is universal (numbers) and the ICANN's desire of being unversal in
what is actually CLASS oriented (names and 65,535 roots) create
distorsions. These distorsions are enlighted by the necessary
multitechnology convergence of the whole digital ecosystem (far
outside of the Internet, but very near from the users - mobiles (and
GSMA), TV, Video on demand, Big Data, Wiki 3.0, etc.)

Moves like IPv6, IDNA, vanity TLDs extend the IPv4 ASCII Internet, and
therefore are actually new technologies, even if very near from the
IETF one. As such discussing their specific concerns (like FBI, or
Chinese DNS Draft) necessarily raises the question of the nature,
position, need of ICANN. Because these questions should be discussed
more globally than just at the end to end Internet level.

Is it the proper time? For some yes, for others not. How much is
concrete, how much does already exist, how much is fairy tales and
dreams?

Also, in addition to the collaterality of new technologies, there is
the question I raise through the Internet+ (validated through IDNA),
and that Google started experimenting as Google+, of the use of the
Internet end to end strata to support fringe to fringe networking
concepts, the same as the IETF Internet added-value builds up on top
of the ITU documented bandwidth. The Internet+ Governance is NOT to be
the Internet Governance, the same as the ITU cannot be a part (but a
support) of the Internet Governance.

However, how the Internet+ Governance is going to organize is a matter
no one wants yet to consider simply because the Internet+ is still in
the limbos of my I_Ds and in the growing experience of Google. And
gov.power and market.shares will have to be reconsidered.

For the time being my reading of the situation is that we have four options:

- status quo + patches (ICANN) : at least until what ICANN requested
in ICP-3 has been truely considered (I am the only one having matched
that experimentation).

- adaptation of that status quo to the reality within the ICANN
framework, like the Chinese DNS I_D (I believe it proposes the
opposite to what has been read in here).

- take-over of the Internet Governance by the USG or Google if the
situation degrades slowly, or by the UN in case of emergency
(cyber-catastrophe/war) as a group of existing or currently planned
governmental or dual (Gov+Industry) back-up solutions.

- eventual emergence of the Internet+ Governance. My feeling is that
the ITU stratum was Gov+Industry governed, the Internet is
Industry+Gov governed and the Internet+ stratum will be Industry+Lead
users+Gov governed. Logically, the ultimate communication stratum, I
call the Intersem (semiotic Internet of Ideas) will further on (not
today!) support inter-comprehension might be people centric and
culturally governed as demanded by the WSIS resolutions.

We are experimenting today, as we do for years, some prepartory but
more ad more pressing questions of this long term evolution that
is/will be supported by new technologies (just let think of the named
address-free data neworking solutions and the way the current Internet
technology can support it in using IPv6 addresses as a logistic
contribution to semantic addresssing). These are concepts out of the
IETF scope and Internet Governance stratum, but not of the real life
"international newtrok" (for which we need to introduce the future
concrete solutions today).

jfc

2012/6/27, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>:
> On Jun 27, 2012, at 5:31 PM, c.a. wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the detailed info, John. However, predating does not mean they
>> are not under Icann oversight - as the very core mission of Icann states.
>> In any case, I continue to believe Icann is the proper space for directing
>> my question, malgré the lack of response - btw, I have copied my concern
>> to Lacnic's policy discussion lists at almost tlhe same time I directed
>> the question to the Icann board.
>
> c.a. -
>
> Could you clearly state your concern so that I may insure that it
> is addressed at some point during this week's ICANN meeting?
>
> As best I can determine, you are concerned that US LEA is providing
> input into the policy development process?  If that is not correct,
> can you suggest a better phrasing?
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t