[discuss] Beyon IPv6...(evolution of IPv6 thread to what are we all doing here?)

[Joe Alhadeff]

Nathalie:

 

I think that part of the silence on the list can be explained in 3 ways. 

 

First a number of us joined with a post-Bali near-term focus on the meeting that will take place in Brazil and some of the related meetings beyond that in the hopes of developing a coalition that would preserve the concepts related to the importance and utility of mutlistakeholderism in the Internet Governance conversation.  The question of what those terms may mean is an inherent part of that concept, but will likely present a set of issues that will be with us for some time to come.  You are absolutely right that any real movement towards closure on those issues will require the participation of more than 6 or 7 seven voices.  Part of the question is can we engage in that longer-term constructive conversation while still moving forward on constructive engagement related to the more near-term issues?  While I understand the causal linkage, I think the resolution timeframes are likely to be different; for example the question of the importance of the term "roles" and how the various stakeholder communities understand what the concept of roles mean.  I think we can all agree that we believe that stakeholders should have a broader role than merely being provided an opportunity to provide input, but that does not imply the role of co-decision-maker across the board - that is rooted in context and circumstances. Similarly, looking at the roles of the various institutions currently involved in Internet Governance is a large and complex proposition that may well be beyond the purview of any list beyond a discussion of issues and possibilities.

 

The second reason for the more limited participation may have to do with some of the earlier dynamics of the list which were, shall we say, less constructive in nature than the more recent exchanges.  We should all work to ensure that the more constructive engagement continues. 

 

The third reason is related to the first and goes back to the expectation of joining the list.  For those who were thinking more near/mid-term the level of detail engaged in the IPv6 conversation, while interesting and generally relevant, may not relate to the specific interests of participation. 

 

A number of posts to the list have bemoaned the inability to move forward based of a lack of common ground/expectation.  This is our Achilles heel.  This is a threaded discussion list and perhaps we can use that feature to better segregate our interests while understanding the need to cross pollinate ideas across the threads?  

 

We all share frustration at what this isn't, the question remains on how to find paths of consensus and possible processes to move us forward.  This is my humble attempt at trying to outline the problem and at least suggest  baby steps forward.

 

 

Joe

 

 

From: nathalie coupet [mailto:nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 10:23 AM
To: JFC Morfin
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Anything specific? Was: Re: IPv6 Deployment and IG

 

+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 <HYPERLINK "mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com"jefsey at jefsey.com>
To: jefsey <HYPERLINK "mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com"jefsey at jefsey.com> 
Cc: "HYPERLINK "mailto:discuss at 1net.org"discuss at 1net.org" <HYPERLINK "mailto: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
HYPERLINK "mailto:discuss at 1net.org"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/20131229/14f18d8c/attachment-0001.html>