TRUST - was Re: [governance] Re: [IANAtransition] Redlined Scoping Document

Ian Peter ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Mon Apr 14 16:20:21 EDT 2014 

Well said Deirdre

From: Deirdre Williams 
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:13 AM
To: Internet Governance ; Jefsey 
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IANAtransition] Redlined Scoping Document

  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. 
  At 21:09 13/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote: 
   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. 
  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. 
  On 14 April 2014 03:44, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote: 
  2. from history and architectonical thinking does the Internet need sovereignty?
  3. if yes which kind of sovereignty? legal, moral, technical, societal, geographical, cultural, ethical, military, securitary, economical, etc.
  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? 
  A satisfactory answer to this question might move us towards a re-creation of trust. 
  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? 
  If trust cannot be re-established, then there seems to be little chance for rapprochement among the (undefined) stakeholders, however many they may be. 


  Deirdre 



On 14 April 2014 03:44, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

  At 01:45 14/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote:

    Michel stop baiting. I did not say exclusively. I said these technical ideas are in scope and therefore could be considered. 

  Michel,

  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?" 

  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. 

  Let disambiguate the root of the question (keeping in mind that it is iterative, since it concerns a systemic evolution).

  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.
  2. from history and architectonical thinking does the Internet need sovereignty?
  3. if yes which kind of sovereignty? legal, moral, technical, societal, geographical, cultural, ethical, military, securitary, economical, etc.
  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?
  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.

  Then and only then,
  - 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?]).
  - 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:

  "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."

  At this stage, the NTIA aporetic proposition is an "individual effort to gain proprietary advantage" to say the least.

  jfc



    On Apr 13, 2014 7:00 PM, "Michel Gauthier" <mg at telepresse.com> wrote: 
      At 23:48 13/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote: 
        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.
      Dear Vint,

      I just want to be sure I do not misunderstand you, because this is very important to everyone.

      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?

      This in spite of the ICANN/ICP-3 own recommendations?

      What if NTIA disapproves ICANN?

      M G





        v



        On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote: 
          Dear Vint, 
          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.. 
          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. 
          What do you think of those who want at least to experiment a back-up? 
          M G 
          At 21:09 13/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote: 
            Seun, 
            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€ 
            I appreciate your efforts to try to keep the discussion moving in constructive directions. 
            vint 
            On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com > wrote: 
              Hello Milton, 
              On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:


                > As Chip Sharp points out, there is a contractual requirement for IANA staff to not 
                > be involved in policy development (other than to respond to questions), but that 
                > is different than requiring the IANA Functions operator to be separated from ICANN. 
                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.


    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) 
    So you have pointed out the right issue; which is to discuss "how to maintain the current separation" (that is already structural and functional) 
    Nevertheless as usual, i am open to be convinced on what aspect i may have missed. ;) 
    Thanks 
    Regards 
      _______________________________________________ 
      ianatransition mailing list 
      ianatransition at icann.org 
      https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition

  -- 
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
    Seun Ojedeji, 
    Federal University Oye-Ekiti 
    web:Ā  Ā  ÄâĀ  http://www.fuoye.edu.ng 
    Mobile: +2348035233535 
    alt email:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng






  _______________________________________________ 
  ianatransition mailing list 
  ianatransition at icann.org 
  https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition

  _______________________________________________ 
  ianatransition mailing list 
  ianatransition at icann.org 
  https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition _______________________________________________
  ianatransition mailing list
  ianatransition at icann.org
  https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition 

  ____________________________________________________________
  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






-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140415/8533a8de/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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

More information about the Governance mailing list