<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>See below<br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>Begin forwarded message:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><b>From:</b> Nathalie Coupet <<a href="mailto:nathaliecoupet@yahoo.com">nathaliecoupet@yahoo.com</a>><br><b>Date:</b> April 14, 2014 9:36:56 AM EDT<br><b>To:</b> joseph alhadeff <<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> "<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> <b>Re: [discuss] FW: [IP] GOP, Dems Clash Over Online Domain Name Oversight/reality check</b><br><br></div></blockquote><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>It seems to me a lot more people need to join the conversation to make MS more democratic and inclusive. I don't believe this model can work unless all willing participant have training in various fields, including and especially in the technical field. </div><div>I can attest that it is feasible to gather enough knowledge of the DNS in order to circumvent silos. There is no other way, I believe. By ending civil society's dependency to the technical community, we can discuss on an equal footing. </div><div>An Internet Academy or training programs financed by ICANN would meet these requirements. Training could last between 6 months to 2 years or more, depending on whether the individual wishes to join ALAC or SSAC. I'm not sure body count will help in this matter, since lack of knowledge seem to favor the status quo and deference to the technical community.</div><div><br></div><div>My .02 cents<br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Apr 14, 2014, at 9:22 AM, joseph alhadeff <<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Milton:<br>
<br>
I guess I see these as two discussions which could be developed on
parallel and potentially/likely intersecting paths (one narrowly
focused, the other, more broadly conceptualized) but any outcome
would still need to meet the NTIA criteria. I see no downside to
discussions of a range of mechanisms of governance, but discussing
the possibility of Congressional action seems less productive. I am
also concerned that when we speak of democratic inclusiveness from
those potentially impacted, we also keep in mind the operational
requirements of the Internet and governance mechanisms. Even the
more symbolic oversight functions require some level of knowledge of
the ecosystem and implications of decisions on that ecosystem.
While a large number of users may well be potentially impacted, the
vast majority of them have little knowledge of the working of DNS
systems and related technology or the nuances of principles of
governance. How do we include them? I try to stay away from
exclusionary language, but an not sure how to accommodate the
realities of not every conversation or decision-making process being
appropriate for, or open to, all people...<br>
<br>
Best-<br>
<br>
Joe <br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/14/2014 9:01 AM, Milton L Mueller
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:bb1e904c7cb84a04aaeff339fe25718a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Consolas","serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Joe:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true" name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">></span>There
is a challenge on the table to develop a solution that will
credibly
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">>
</span>meet the NTIA conditions. To date that is at best a
work in progress. <span style="color:#1F497D">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">>
</span>You don't need to have Congressional action for a
failure to meet those <span style="color:#1F497D">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">>
</span>criteria to result in the status quo. The best path
forward on these matters
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">>
</span>is to develop a truly credible solution that protects
stability, functionality
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">>
</span>and unity while remaining a non-governmental,
multistakeholder solution, <span style="color:#1F497D">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">>
</span>not subject to capture or subversion by those elements
that would try to <span style="color:#1F497D">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">>
</span>make the Internet less open. <span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Agreed,
we need to focus on the IANA transition, and general
discussions of what is democracy do not contribute to that.
However, it is legitimate for people to relate specific
proposals to broader governance principles. Indeed, that is
unavoidable.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As
for developing solutions, there are a number of specific
plans on the table. The IGP proposal is one, but I am still
a big fan of the InternetNZ diagrams, which parse out the
various activities and functions and show how different
proposals might structure them.
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/27/mapping-out-the-iana-transition/">http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/27/mapping-out-the-iana-transition/</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
would propose this as a reference point for discussion.
There is plenty of constructive activity and discussion that
can happen if we start with that.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">What
is not helpful, or constructive, is for ICANN’s scoping
document to tell us that any such discussion is out of
scope. That gambit has completely derailed constructive
planning and proposal-making around the transition. That is
why we and many others have rejected the scoping document
and proposed a modified version here:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nYQwmfTB52fLwT88RpAyGd3kD69rBLXbnG5zi5IT9yw/edit?usp=sharing">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nYQwmfTB52fLwT88RpAyGd3kD69rBLXbnG5zi5IT9yw/edit?usp=sharing</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Joe<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 4/13/2014 9:53 AM, michael gurstein
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Accepting
for the moment the argument that the USG has been completely
benign and acting completely in support of the global public
interest in its stewardship of the Internet, shouldn’t
someone somewhere be doing the deep thinking involved in
figuring out what to do if/when the USG/Congress says to the
world… “The Internet is ours, we paid for it, and you can’t
have it or you can have it only on our terms… (or the
diplomatic/technical equivalent)… and without of course,
having any clear idea of what that does (or could) mean.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">M<br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: <b>Dewayne Hendricks</b> <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:dewayne@warpspeed.com">dewayne@warpspeed.com</a>><br>
Date: Sunday, April 13, 2014<br>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] GOP, Dems Clash Over Online Domain
Name Oversight<br>
To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:dewayne-net@warpspeed.com">dewayne-net@warpspeed.com</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
GOP, DEMS CLASH OVER ONLINE DOMAIN NAME OVERSIGHT<br>
By ALAN FRAM<br>
Apr 10 2014<br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/gop-dems-clash-over-online-domain-name-oversight" target="_blank">http://bigstory.ap.org/article/gop-dems-clash-over-online-domain-name-oversight</a>><br>
<br>
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican opposition to Obama
administration plans to spin off U.S. oversight of the
Internet's domain name system is evolving into an
election-year political fight, with GOP lawmakers using it
as the latest front in their attacks on President Barack
Obama's trustworthiness.<br>
<br>
"We've seen enough out of this administration and its
imperial presidency politics that I'm not going to just give
them a blank pen and then walk away," Rep. Greg Walden,
R-Ore., said Thursday as a House subcommittee he chairs
voted to impose a one-year delay in implementing any changes
so congressional investigators could study the issue.<br>
<br>
The party-line 16-10 vote came as administration officials
defended their proposal at other congressional hearings. And
Democratic lawmakers said Republican warnings that the
Internet could be turned over to hostile governments were
the stuff of fantasy.<br>
<br>
"It's not a conspiracy or a digital black helicopter," Rep.
Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., said in a sarcastic reference to
1990s-era claims by some militias and other right-wing
groups about government surveillance aircraft. "It's a plan,
and I think it's time to move forward with it."<br>
<br>
The back and forth comes during a campaign season in which
Republicans have vilified Obama as exceeding his powers by
taking steps such as delaying various deadlines set by his
health care overhaul law, which they solidly oppose.<br>
<br>
The latest dispute is over an administration announcement
last month that it wants to give up its oversight of the
non-profit U.S. corporation that manages the Internet's
system of addresses, such as
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.ap.org" target="_blank">www.ap.org</a>.<br>
<br>
That entity — the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers — has allocated domain names and the numerical
addresses to which they are attached since 1998. Ever since,
ICANN's work has been overseen by the Commerce Department's
National Telecommunications and Information Administration.<br>
<br>
"We are not giving up our leadership role," Lawrence
Strickling, who heads the NTIA, told members of the House
Judiciary Committee. "We are stepping out of clerical
functions we currently perform."<br>
<br>
Shedding oversight of how ICANN distributes addresses is a
long-planned, logical next step, administration officials
say. They say the move would still leave the U.S. with a
voice on advisory committees and other entities that make
decisions about larger questions about Internet policies.<br>
<br>
The Obama administration and ICANN say decisions about who
would take the current U.S. oversight role will be made by
companies, engineers, nonprofit groups, governments and
other Internet users — the same way many decisions about
Internet policy are currently made.<br>
<br>
"Everyone is at the table with equal voice," ICANN's
president and CEO, Fadi Chehade, told the Judiciary panel.
"The model works, and it works very well."<br>
<br>
Critics say there is no way to know what new entity would
take the administration's role, or what other changes might
occur should the U.S. lose leverage with the domain
assigning corporation The U</p></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>discuss mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></span></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></body></html>