[discuss] H.R 4367 : Internet Stewardship Act of 2014
jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon Apr 7 23:03:30 UTC 2014
At 20:01 07/04/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>What it is doing is focusing scrutiny and visibility on the
>transition process (and on the Congresspeople that have sponsored
>these bills). It may also result in some form of understanding
>regarding the nature and scope of US government (including
>Congressional) oversight of the NTIA and their decision-making
>process on the IANA transition.
Yes. US Congressmen and Senators are partly fooled but no fools.
There are three games that seem to be developping:
1. the US political one with the target to get the best
(international) legislation - and TTIP agreement, i.e. the
continuation of the status-quo.
2. the ICANN survival/transition one - the question of the qui pro quo.
3. the multitude emergence now librated by the political executive
retirement initially foreseen for 2000, i.e. the end of the status-quo.
On the iCANN sponsored lists the second one prevails but it is the
less important one for the world. This means that the game is now, as
I noted it, potentia vs potestas, VGNs vs. Lobbies. The NTIA clearly
said it wanted one single thing: not a single authoritative ICANN
root, but stability. Once again the referee could be the US Congress
influencing a WDO (World Digisphere Organization) possibly built on
ICANN ashes. John Shimkus and Fadi Chehade (with Dilma Rousseff) are
nominally playing their script, the same as Milton, George, John,
Michael and Richard. We will know better through the Sao Paulo press
releases. Things seem to be on track. The only incertitude is the
credibility of the multitude's potentia. This will most probably be
decided by the IUsers' work and test-bed results in the coming year or so.
More information about the discuss