[discuss] P1 version 3: Added detail and a request for useful background information

Thu Jan 23 06:53:22 UTC 2014

On Jan 22, 2014, at 7:42 PM, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com> wrote:

> my read is that Jorge Amodio is making an important point - no matter whether there be a legal mandate or constraints, positions within the US like "they will only take the Internet away if it is from my cold dead fingers" impose a severe constraint on steps toward the different possible scenarios of internationalization, and they need to be taken into account in any (re-) design even if they are not being expressed in this constrained environment.

I believe it is quite reasonable to expect that there will be resistance to change from many fronts; 
I simply wanted to confirm that was not a call against trying to develop said scenarios for moving 
forward.

> Further to that read, i will add the view that many interrnationalization approaches will not be viable if people within the US do not begin to support them. This means to lobby, picket or whatever is the appropriate practice, before the government's executive and legislative branches, not the always close-to-hand ICANN pignata. That would show some real decision to effect change; beating ICANN yet again is improductive if you don't do the other side as well.

The USG government has historically been quite flexible with respect to these arrangements, and as a 
result we have seen them go from tasks which totally under US contract to a transition which allowed 
ICANN's formation (including the JPA), and then follow-on transition from formal JPA to AoC.    I have 
no idea what the USG view of any 1net proposed scenario forward will be, but there has been no lack 
of flexibility on the part of the USG with respect to these matters, particularly in response to proposals 
which evolve the oversight while protecting the Internet's ability to innovate and adapt.   Asserting that 
the USG will be problem (prior to any actual proposal) does not appear to be particularly constructive.

> Scenarios for this happening or not are determinant in delimimting the solution space for George's Problem 1 however we finesse its formulation. ARIN, BTW, would be a very credible leader if it chose that course of action and is not otherwise.

Please note that ARIN (along with the other RIRs) is already on record with "a general position that no 
government should have a special role in managing, regulating or supervising the IANA functions."
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/NRO-comments-to-USDoC-NoI.pdf>

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer:  Unless otherwise cited, my views alone.