[discuss] [IANAtransition] Troll
jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Apr 17 11:10:15 UTC 2014
I understand what you intended to do and why. This was impolite, but
no offense has been taken. I have no problem in repeating you that I
am one of the IG co-founder of telepresse.com, and I suggest you
better read our 16 years old site. I regret the lame response of Greg
"I did not insult you: this was the quote I chose". I am impatient to
see the result of George's promise of handling an MS process as a
kindergarten on behalf of free speach.
I know you know I have trapped you in clarifying the whole NTIA
removal process. It could have been anyone not knowing me. I did it
for the very reason you gave: "without the serious disruption of the
[ICANN's aficionados] most of us would have much more time to
consider the other thoughts offered and there would considerable free
bandwidth for new people to fill."
Let us try to consider these things neutrally and seriously.
1. the USG (through FCC and NTIA) has supervised the whole
international network deployment process for 37 years.
2. the NTIA has announced its removal from this supervision in very
3. in asking ICANN to organize a transition toward a new governance
where leadership will not be exercised the way the world chose in
Dubai. This is, therefore, a delicate task that should ascertain
whether ICANN succeeds in convincing the world and, therefore, the NTIA.
One can easily imagine that the NTIA's successor will face a complex
political context and must be designed to manage it. The test that
the NTIA has foreseen is to see if ICANN, before contemplating
managing a transition, and possibly assuming a succession, is able to
facilitate the MS process that will devise its proposition to the world.
You have shown that it has for the time being definitely failed that test. Why?
ICANN has chosen to prepare this process in using this mailing list.
This mailing list is, therefore, part of an MS management process as
perceived and facilitated by ICANN. We are cooperating stakeholders.
There are on the list a large number of ICANN supporters. Some others
are not, but accept or watch ICANN. I am neither because I think that
the mere concept of ICANN is a BUG (in being designed to Be
Unilaterally Global). Up to now, that BUG was patched by the NTIA
supervision (1) which artificially centralized a distributed network
(2) making ICANN once deprived from the NTIA functionally unable to
sustain my stakes of VGN Master. This additionally comes at a time
(perhaps the reason why the NTIA disengages) when the network of
networks will suffer from its ongoing transformation into the
networks (VGNs) of the networks (technologies) of networks
(bandwidth), documented by the I*Stakeholders OpenStand RFC 6852.
So, I patiently tried to explain, because I am one the concerned
stakeholders who will suffer from the resulting IG deficit:
1. That the internet that this list discusses is a 1978 project the
first part of which went well, and the second part is not completed
but it can be achieved outside of the IETF (since it must interface
multiple technologies outside of the IETF scope and mission [RFC 3935])
2. that this multitechnology second part is outdated by the RFC 6852
economic standardization paradigm and has to be reviewed before being
able match the current evolutions.
3. how this should be explored in cooperation, along the ICANN policy
and toward its described possibilities or others.
The response you bring, supported by an ICANN Board Member, "I call
for/we need a procedure to impeach such behavior" (this is my
reading) only shows that:
1. you and ICANN have not understood what an MS mechanism of
discussion and decision is and want to prevent stakeholder from
defending their interests.
2. you and ICANN are not able to consider an evolution of its 1998
digital context, which may raise suspicions regarding 2015 and further on.
3. ICANN has chosen to manage its first enhanced MS case I a way that
would be disrupted by the decent contributions of a non-obedient
stakeholder. If the ICANN MS process system is not able to manage me,
how will they deal with China, Russia, or North Korea?
You will note that you did not have much time to wait: the yesterday
European evaluation is a direct response to your mail. Now,
understand that I am more vocal than my fellow internet informed
individual users because I have sort of overseen this question, in
development (until 1986) and further on in adversity, for decades.
What is happening right now is just the result of the seeds of the
late 1970s decade and I think that the NTIA and you have closed that
chapter. I hoped ICANN and a completed OpenStand could make the US
VGN cooperate with the emergence of billions of VGNs. This will
happen, but not with this ICANN.
I am afraid that George Sadowsky's response and the lack of a
contribution of Steve Crocker and Vint Cerf mean that the ICANN
framework is obsolete. I do not know what the NTIA will decide: I
think most of the rest of the world and I will stay friendly because
there is no reason to shoot at the ambulance and most have already
turned the page. I was probably the last one to actively preach for a
feasible technical, political and societal realistic continuity. You
turned me wrong: a change is necessary. OpenStand has started it. You
have settled it. Thank you. What is coming will be to the IG what the
IG is to the ITU.
As individual, local, national VGN Masters, the time has come to
definitely dedicate our effort toward a "fail-secure plan" for our
networks. If ICANN wants to talk with us, they can discuss it with
Europe first. We elected them and we pay taxes for that, they start
doing a good job, TTIP is coming, and the US Telecom Act is to be
seriously adjusted to the world's demand and the net neutrality.
We cannot hope to trust ICANN to keep the internet lead anymore. It
is too difficult for their formula.
Sorry and Thanks.
At 22:09 16/04/2014, Jay Daley wrote:
>On 17/04/2014, at 6:56 am, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
> > I find some of the so-called "troll" posts interesting and a sincere
> > attempt to present a sometimes very different view of these issues.
> > I was confused when I saw the initial troll complaint and had to pay
> > close attention to figure out who or what was being referenced.
>I was reasonably clear to couch my email as a question to see who
>else felt that way and it is clear that not everyone does.
> > I would really like some explanation of how these posts were hostile
> > or purposely counter-productive rather than just, for some, different.
>I did not suggest that they were either hostile or purposely
> > Lacking that my gut tells me this is mostly a "get with the program or
> > get out" sort of complaint.
>Quite the opposite. Two reasons for that - the first is the most
>obvious, that the position on structural separation I have been
>taking is quite clearly "not with the program" and the second is
>that without the serious disruption of the troll most of us would
>have much more time to consider the other thoughts offered and there
>would considerable free bandwidth for new people to fill.
> > Admittedly the volume on these lists is a little high, and my post
> > isn't improving that, but other than that I can't imagine why just
> > ignoring one poster, if that's your desire, doesn't suffice.
>That's certainly the strategy I have pursued but not everyone
>follows that and so otherwise useful threads descend into nonsense
>and valuable interactions are spoiled.
>One question - would you feel any different about this if someone,
>hypothetically of course, were posting to a list using multiple
>identities in order to create a conversation where none existed otherwise?
> > --
> > -Barry Shein
> > The World | bzs at TheWorld.com |
> > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up:
> US, PR, Canada
> > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
>.nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited)
>desk: +64 4 931 6977
>mobile: +64 21 678840
>ianatransition mailing list
>ianatransition at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss