[discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback
jefsey at jefsey.com
Tue Apr 15 10:19:55 UTC 2014
At 03:37 15/04/2014, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>I'm not George, but I think I understand his question. Sadly, I'm
>one of those "technical people," so I may be even more puzzled than he is.
>Since the IANA functions *are* technical functions, I'm somewhat
>confused as to what decision making is left for the "business,
>governmental, and civil society representatives who don't attend
>ICANN/technical community meetings" when you've declared that the
>day-to-day operations of IANA are not interesting to you and can be
>left to the "technical community" committee ICANN is already proposing.
as explained to Carlos, the status-quo is in full evolution through a
qui-pro-quo. Everyone keeps refering to "IANA functions" without
realizing that they belong to the past. I am sorry to say that but
you are an "old-time technical people" from, let-say RFC 3935. You
have to update yourself to the OpenStand RFC 6852 modern paradigm,
where standards are "de facto" and led by the "global communities" economics.
Each of these communities start needing, and will have their own
IANA. The qui-pro-quo is to make believe you, Brian, Andrew, etc.
that the issue is political when it is highly technical. What is at
stake is the technical governance: how to keep working on an end to
end basis an increasingly technically fragmented fringe to fringe
global system. This was possible after IDNA2008, this is not anymore.
None of us wants the system to be fragmented, but this is the one the
first status-quo has left us with: the first IEN 48 motivation has
been blocked. So instead of a fringe to fringe layer six
intertechnology unity, we are left with an edge provider diversity
that is settling while diverting us in the political field.
The problem technical and political governance have in common is the
network toll. Competition should be on quality, it is on
non-neutrality advantages protected until now by the unilaterality of
NTIA -> ICANN -> IANA that has now to be relaxed to better support
technical fragmentation, against the rest of the world political
objection. While we discuss a false problem (ICANN) the real problem
(IANA) is disregarded. What is important is not who is to manage the
IANA, but the extension and coexistence of IANAs and how to keep them
in tune. What the world wants to be protected from is not the US
domination, but from the US industry marketing technical
fragmentation (RFC 3869) and, also, NSA surveillance and USCC deterrance.
I understand it is difficult to clearly grasp it from your central
point of view. It is much easier to perceive it from IUser's
periphery: if I want to keep my own internet application system
consistant while using tools from different edge provider's "global
communities" (Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. with their own
proprietary/FLOSS sub-divisions) it becomes a nightmare.
More information about the discuss