[discuss] Anything specific? Was: Re: IPv6 Deployment and IG

Sun Dec 29 15:23:24 UTC 2013

+1
Kudos to JFC. 
1) I 'reported' to the group how ill-at-ease I (and many others) felt about WG participation at ICANN by talking about this lack of enthusiasm of participants, because  ICANN is often perceived as an imbroglio; the questions I submitted and the subsequent call for comments was in the hope of initiating a debate and input by all who had a broader view of the question to come up with solutions. Could we check if there is a consensus for change here and whether people accept some/all/none of the solutions presented in Weber-Gunnarson's report? (Report is attached) Are there other reports from authoritative sources that could help in this matter? Could we take action now?
2) Do we (some/a few/the majority) agree to work on the definition of what is the Internet and/or Internet governance? Do we (some/a few/the majority) accept one of the definitions presented so far? Are there more definitions out there? If so, please provide them.      
3) Could we agree on standards for engaging all stakeholders in discussions, such as when a new topic is presented by a participant, that he/she also submit historical background information or technical information we (the non-authoritative sources, category in which everyone at some point will fall into) could look at to be able to follow/add to the discussion? 

I (and also many others) would like this mailing list to turn into more than just a discussion between 6-7 people. How about a real outreach program to provide information to all stakeholders (especially newcomers and legislators) on a regular basis? I offer to volunteer to take part in such a venture, if there's a consensus about it. The antidote to inaction is action and information, is it not?        

Nathalie 

________________________________
 From: JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>
To: jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> 
Cc: "discuss at 1net.org" <discuss at 1net.org> 
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: [discuss] Anything specific? Was: Re: IPv6 Deployment and IG

At 22:35 28/12/2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

This is not to pick on Carlos,
but I feel like I keep asking the same
>question, only to be met either with silence or hand-waving
>generalities.  I ask that people give a proposal for some
particular
>thing that they want to see changed.
Andrew,
you keep asking this. I fully architectonically answered it. i.e. in a
way that you should best understand and innovatively contribute and
respond as an IETF leader.

Let review this. We are supposed to be in an "MS" context. 

This means:

(1) As stakeholders everyone participates to the thinking of solutions
that he/she may decide or not to implement where he/she is authoritative. 

This does not change that some people are better problem reporters, other
are better problem analysers and other are better problem solvers. Most
people will tell you why they are unatease. If they known how to address
it (technically or structurally) they would not report it: they would
solve it. Governance is therefore when you do not know or cannot solve a
difficulty alone in a complex environment. You need to discuss (analyse)
it in common, in the hope that people bring the most diverse insights (so
we miss nothing).

This is why: 

- people will never tell you: "this is to be changed" (how
would they know that, in an entangled context, "fixing" this
thing would not unballance many other things?).

- saying that there is no need for a technical governance can only means
two things:

  - either you are totally outside of the reality's complexity
and/or a troll.

  - or you have clearly defined your technical area, proven its
stability and made clear how it relates with the rest of the reality.
Then you are a point of reference. This is what Brian Carpenter has
achived for the end to end internet (i.e. what was defined by Vint
Cerf and Bob Khan in 1974, applied to a limited version of Louis Pouzin's
catenet from 1978 and embodied in by the proven RFC that are strictly
restricted to its area, i.e. internet standards). Any other technical,
political, cultural, etc. external issue having to interface/relate with
it MUST be intergoverned.

NB. For clarity sake, I prefer the word "intergovernance" when
one discusses the governance of the relations between islands of
technical, political, personal, etc. authority or sovereignty. This is in
order to show that what is subject to governance is not, as Brian says,
the parameters, but the interrelations of the authorities which establish
or use them.

(1.1.) you will not be told any particular things that people want to see changed. Except by your own pears and in very
seldom/architectonical cases and in the framework of an architectonical
or architectural fix afte deep and throughout consideration.

(1.2.) you will never have proposals for things to be changed. You
will have:
- either analysis (like mine) to tell you where analysers think the
people reported problems come from (and you will most probably have
different analyses to compare). 
- or information on works engaged by "lead users" following
some (or a synthesis) of these analyses. Fadi's GS1 is not the only EDI
culture. The current silence about the internet of things leads to fear
the Fadi does not try to address a need, but to influence a solution
(which might be a good one, but which is neither open nor
discussed).

Where we need mutual governance it is to prevent confusion. Exemple: I
have no problem (except time and money) in implementing and disseminating
my own vision of the catenet evolution based upon the Tymnet and Internet
experiences and the internet achievements. I consider that this lack of
time and money is a common interest precautionary protection against what
could still be uncompleted in my thinking. I am therefore obliged to
convince those who will help me and use my deliverables, showing them
that my vision is correct. We are back to "running code". This
obliges to a perpetual enhancement. For a long time, my
"intersem" is not cast into iron as Brian's
"internet".

Users will not bring you running code. Except, lead users. This is why
Russ Housley has accepted the IUCG at IETF mailing list (It also shows that
lead-usership takes time to take-off among IG members and Civil Society
activists with technical skills).

(2) Therefore, people tell you what they feel wrong.

Not, "We need better
governance," or, "We need improvements," or, "This
could be improved too," or such vague and, frankly, empty
claims.
It is up to you/us (technical - political solvers) to translate it in
things to correct and to propose solutions.

(3) in this process candidate solvers must demonstrate (precautionary
duty) that their proposed solutions will be efficient and
resilient.

Instead, what exactly needs to
be changed?
Mainly two things: 

(1) what they clearly express,

i.e. the lack of users' post-Snowden trust in the technology, hence
in its engineering.and therefore in its governance's capacity to provoque
the necessary research, normalization, development, validation and
deployment strategies. What is exactly to be changed is not up to the
stakeholders to tell, but to the solvers. Stakeholders can only discuss
it and adhere (or not) to the proposed solutions.

(2) trades and special uses support. 

In this ICANN is a significant interface with reality. 
- Dedicated (trade, cultures, linguistic, usages, etc.) areas
consideration was approached since 2000 by new TLDs. 
- The lack of layer six IETF  (bare passive text content) is
acceptable for surveillance, it is not for traceability and big data. 
- RFC 6852 generalizes the concern in refering to global markets economy
as a normalization guide.
- ICANN expressed it in hiring Fadi Chehade from the GS1 world. 
- ISOC expresses a need of general coherence in hiring Kathy Brown from
both Govs (FCC) and Telcos (Verizon).

Take care.
jfc

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131229/c44d5aba/attachment.html>