[discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback

[Jefsey]

At 03:37 15/04/2014, Suzanne Woolf wrote:

>Ian,
>
>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.

Suzanne,

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.

jfc







jfc