[discuss] Current drive

Shatan, Gregory S. GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Fri Apr 4 19:09:31 UTC 2014

the inability of both eyes to focus on one object thereby producing the effect of squinting or cross-eyes. Also called strabismus. — strabismal, strabismic, adj.

Not sure the relevance, but since we are crossing our eyes and dotting our t’s here – I think you are missing the point of what stakeholders are.

The by-laws define the division of stakeholders into certain groupings, unique to ICANN.  They don’t create stakeholders, choose who the stakeholders are, or who represents them.  Commercial interests, non-commercial interests, registries, registrars, the technical community all exist as stakeholders, whether there are groupings identified as such or not..  ICANN may have made the bottle, but they didn’t make the wine.  And, as discussed elsewhere, if a group of stakeholders feels they are not represented in the current groupings, there’s a bottom up process to create new groups.

I was never invited to become a stakeholder (or stakeholder representative).  I just showed up.  Maybe the letter of invitation got lost in the mail, or sent to my spam file.  Others here who participate in the ICANN multistakeholder process can tell their own story of how they got there and why they stayed – academic interest, job requirement, philosophical commitment, public service. But no one is chosen from the top down.

NTIA may have midwifed ICANN and signed up  Verisign as the RZM.  Putting aside the question of how and whether to identify ICANN itself as a stakeholder, which is either meta- or recursive, that doesn’t make anything top-down, any more than the RA and RAA make the registries and registrars “top down” choices of ICANN.

In any  case, I’ve been working.  And sometimes (most of the time) talking (and writing) is working.  At some point we must move from policy to implementation, which is more work (but still done largely through talking, writing and thinking).

As for which parts of this are “chit-chat of no importance whatsoever” – res ipsa loquitur.

Greg Shatan

From: Jefsey [mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 11:36 AM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; Alejandro Pisanty; John Curran
Cc: discuss at 1net.org List
Subject: RE: [discuss] Current drive

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.â€?  The ICANN multistakeholder process is an open, bottom-up, consensus-driven process.  Anyone can participate, whether as a member of an existing “stakeholder groupâ€? 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> [ 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<mailto: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 http://dnsa.org/mailman/listinfo/agora_dnsa.org. (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.


* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.

* * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.

Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140404/b4ee99e7/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list