[discuss] Why oversight? (was Re: Opportunity for input on the development process forIANAoversight transition plan)

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Wed Apr 2 18:48:55 UTC 2014

At 13:14 02/04/2014, Joseph Alhadeff wrote:
>Without need to revert to the potential of evil conspiracy,

Dear Joseph,
I appreciate the way you evaluate WSIS consensus and world democracy :-)!

>there is an established concept of separation of duties in security, 
>audit and governance.  The concept that parties who share a broad 
>but not identical interest in providing a similar service will not 
>or would never align those interests to abuse or game the system is 
>not sufficient safeguard.  Is it a likely scenario that they would, 
>perhaps not, but we are supposed to be improving on the system.  I 
>do not believe that the oversight of everyone potentially impacted 
>is the solution either as we need to understand needed skills and 
>efficiencies in the system, but having some, even light touch, but 
>credible nongovernmental oversight structure facilitates transition 
>more that just "trust us".

I understand that you just want me not to trust my democratically 
elected government, and the security, audit and governance experts I 
pay through my taxes. I fully understand that after Iraq, NSA, and 
the root lies you do not personally trust the US government and 
prefer to check and manage things by yourself, but I only suspect my 
own government of mischief not of duplicity. This seems to be the 
difference between you and me. We keep faith in the impact of our votes.

I do not say that the solution is an oversight of everyone 
potentially impacted; I say that everyone potentially impacted should 
be treated on an equal footing. In applying equal footing, I do not 
preselect the participants. This is the NTIA MSism vs. the IETF one.


>Sent from my iPad
> > On Apr 1, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> >
> > At 14:58 01/04/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >> A third answer I've seen appears to be that we need a place for
> >> governments to supervise everything.  I think that view is
> >> antithetical to the multi-stakeholder approach we're supposedly using.
> >> If people are really opposed to that approach, they should say that.
> >
> > Andrew,
> > they definitly are.
> >
> > But they understand they are opposed to the NTIA MSism, familiar 
> and unhappy with the ICANN MSism, more happy but without illusion 
> with the IGF MS compromise, and used to the ITU MSism. MSism is a 
> tool, we name "concertation" in Europe. It depends on who is at the 
> table and if there are mandatory prerequisites or not. This is 
> related to the NTIA "no governement" diktat: people elect and pay 
> government to carry that job. You tell them to participate and that 
> you will help: they do not want to be engineers, they want to be 
> users and to get what they expect for the money of their taxes. 
> This includes to be protected from US global interests interferences.
> >
> > Let it be understood once for all: we do *not* want a policy and 
> a technology designed in the interest of the US network edges 
> (providers and surveillance). This was voted in Dubai. OECD 
> countries officialy supported the US there. Elections throughout EU 
> (France this WE, Germany being uncertain about Russia, etc.) show 
> that the OECD support is weakening. We do not want neo-liberalism 
> neither in policy nor in technology. The strategic reports to the 
> US President and Presidentially signed non-applied strategy I 
> quoted yesterday explain why it is dangerous for the US as well as 
> for everyone.
> >
> > If you want to commit suicide for Google, this is your choice. It 
> is more and more obviusly not the choice of the world.
> > jfc
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the discuss mailing list