[discuss] Current drive

Jefsey jefsey at jefsey.com
Fri Apr 4 15:35:33 UTC 2014

At 16:32 04/04/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>In ICANN as it is, or any revised version stemming from proposals by 
>Milton, George or others, the stakeholders are NOT chosen by the top 
>or clearly defined by any “law.”  The ICANN multistakeholder 
>process is an open, bottom-up, consensus-driven process.  Anyone can 
>participate, whether as a member of an existing “stakeholder 
>group” or not.  Finally, the IANA transition does not require any 
>change in US law or approval by Congress, although there are 
>admittedly Republican-led efforts to change that.  And the 9/9/19 is 
>one version of a worst case scenario – assuming we blow throough 
>both the end of the current contract term and both renewal terms.


We do not have the same strabism. Have not the NTIA, ICANN, Versign 
stakeholders been chosen by the USG, the SO stakeholders created by 
the bylaws?

We are not talking of Wahsington's industry GOP hot flashes, but to 
adapt the 1996 Telecommunications Act in agreement with the 
technology's reality and other legislations throught out the world. 
That is if the US industry wants to directly interface them without 
Executive help. Otherwise we will eventually circumvent it. Probably 
not what your colleagues in K Street want.

Anyway all this chit chat has absolutely no importance whatsoever.
Let get real and serious. The result will be what will be/have been 
the people's choice on 19/9/9. You can talk.  You can work. This is 
your choice now.


>Greg Shatan
>From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On 
>Behalf Of Jefsey
>Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 10:11 AM
>To: Alejandro Pisanty; John Curran
>Cc: discuss at 1net.org List
>Subject: Re: [discuss] Current drive
>1. I agree that Milton's approach (not the solution) is the only one 
>we can currently work on since George said he is to revamp his position.
>2. from your questions, you want to see real actions to be 
>tested/discussed rather than putative thoughts to be “blah blah blah”ed.
>These two points seem to be enough in order to address the issue in 
>the way the NTIA wishes it.
>1. there are three possibilities because in real life you do not 
>change things, you build aside things, so:
>1.0. either the internet is closed and something else is to replace it.
>1.1. either the current system is continued; this is George's line 
>as far as I understand it.
>1.2. or a new system is built and tested in parallel.
>            - This is where Milton's line should lead us if he was 
> not actually trying to reform the current system with new ideas.
>            - This is what I have triggered and reported, based upon 
> Milton's initial logic.
>2. If you consider only the 1.1. and 1.2. options, there are only 
>two possible known stable systems: top-down or bottom-up. A hybrid 
>proposition cannot be expected to build-up easily and auto-maintain 
>stably. The current system is top-down due to the claimed legitimacy 
>from building the internet is from the leading world power. The NTIA 
>removal has only two possible results:
>2.1. either it reinforces the leading power’s influence on 
>stability in bringing the stability of the leading power's law as a 
>referent instead of its political executive. This is the NTIA MSist 
>hypothesis. It calls for an adaptation of the US law (by Congress) 
>before the 9/9/19 date, as assigned by the NTIA (cf. L. Strickling), 
>if we allow three weeks for a pre-crash emergency agreement.
>2.2. or it switches to the other stable system: bottom-up and proves 
>that it has fully assumed the transition before 9/9/19.
>This means that it is ICANN vs. DNSA.
>In order to clarify the debate, I suggest that
>-         the “discuss” and “IANAtransition” keep discussing 
>the 2.1. George/Milton solution (i.e. ICANN plus possible DNSA),
>-        and “agora” is the list to debate the 2.2. solution at 
>(i.e. DNSA including ICANN as a leading stakeholder).
>Both solutions obviously share the same "MSism" intent that in 
>European English is called "concertation".
>- In the 2.1. approach, the stakeholders (or partners) are chosen by 
>the top and have to be clearly defined by the law for the system to 
>be resilient. The need is to determine the law and to get it 
>implemented and accepted.
>- in the 2.2. approach, the partners (or stakeholders) are the 
>multitude, i.e. everyone who "wishes to be" a participant, like at 
>the IETF and Wikipedia. There is no leadership, but a steering 
>secretariat can be forked at any time, making it accountable to the 
>network itself. By the multitude for the multitude: the DNSes’ Wikipedia.
>The origin of the whole issue is, therefore, that our known 
>governance systems do not scale to the globally “catenet”ed 
>human society. We have to invent one that will be adapted to the new 
>scale of the computer assisted human gathering and decision 
>processes, beginning with the governance of that very system.
>- There are those who want to enhance the existing governance to 
>make it more “democratic”.
>- There are those who want to carefully (ICANN/ICP-3 gives good 
>guidelines) test (a) new system(s), so that evidence will show on 
>9/9/19which is the one to retain (or if they can cooperate). This is 
>what the NTIA is calling for.
>This does not prevent those who think that the proper global 
>granularity is neither with the doers nor with the users but with 
>the rulers to pursue an ITU based proposition. IMHO, but this is 
>only on my opinion, the three systems apply, each at its own stratum 
>in the network pile. This is why they do not oppose but complete. We 
>have 5.5 years to observe, learn, and agree how.
>This being said, I triggered the DNSA for it to belong to everyone 
>and its own technical target is to be its own “named data 
>system”, so that the leadership issue is fully diluted in our 
>polycratic networked society.
>This is algorithmic governance, it should therefore be 
>algorithmically governed by public protocol.
>At 07:53 04/04/2014, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
>at this point an asymmetric approach to the problem may be 
>productive (addressing Michael Gurstein and Parminder Jeet Singh as well):
>Very briefly: Frank LaRue, the UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of 
>Expression, has proposed for years that instead of defining 
>"Internet rights" positively, in detail, etc. we focus on the rights 
>themselves and prevent, prosecute and punish their violations 
>independently of whether "online" is involved or not (disclaimer: 
>very briefly, my own summary for this discussion.)
>In the same mode of thinking the questions about public interest can 
>be recast. What specifically goes against the public interest, and 
>how vital is it to solve it? (solving one problem has the cost of 
>opportunity of not solving others.) A framework similar to risk 
>management (identifying separately probability and impact; assessing 
>the risk/damage-cost-benefit relations) may be useful.
>This approach may quickly lead us to productive steps on the problem 
>Milton continues to discuss and the one now posed by George. The 
>other approach seems to me to have been wrung drier than by lyophilization.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140404/b57e1d6b/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list