[discuss] Fwd: Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

[JFC Morfin]

At 22:42 13/02/2014, Mike Roberts wrote:
>However much many of us might dislike it, the fact is that the U.S. 
>Congress and senior govt ministries hold trump cards if a proposal 
>emerges that offends them.  In the present atmosphere of worldwide 
>terrorist attacks and threats, they are easily offended.
>
>Although some might favor a proposal that dwells on the many 
>deficiencies of USG behavior toward ICANN and IANA, it would be much 
>more productive to have one that results in the active engagement of 
>the U.S. in making it happen, rather than being consigned to the 
>large dustbin of schemes that attracted political disfavor. The 
>wording of Ian's PS above is the type of thing that attracts "disfavor."

Mike,

Squaring the circle is always complex, but I think you are definitely right.

This is why the only non hurting way to proceed is by superior law: 
the internet law, which is the source code. The code documented in 
7,500 RFCs, that is implemented everywhere and that not even the U.S. 
Congress, senior ministries, executive orders, USCC action, 
Academics, Techies, CS lawyers, HR activists, and business interests 
can modify (look at the delay for IPv6).

This is exactly what ICANN organized (your July 2001 Internet 
Coordination Policy statement no. 3) and that the "HomeRoot" 
experimentation project is to strictly and fully respect in order to 
investigate an MS grassroots internet governance system, or as a set 
of local, national or global community [cf. RFC 6852] democratic or 
not governance systems if the MS grassroots so decide,

* in parallel to the U.S. Congress' ARPANET interneting (i.e. virtual 
global network) governance vested
* with a good cooperation spirit: our vitual networks share the 
common physical catenet on an equal footing.

A governance of the governances should then emerge for the network of 
networks (or an intergovernance? My 10 year old 
<http://intergovernance.org/>http://intergovernance.org site is still 
unchanged).  Rather than fragmenting the internet, it will pile 
global governances with the same interest for a unique and global 
multilingual, multitechnology and multitrade system, dramatically 
augmenting its resillience.

I doubt that there is any other way to address this problem in any 
other manner (it being dictatorial, democratic, MSist, consensual, 
etc.) because it is an entangled (networked) set of legitimacies, 
capacities, interests, greed, technical protocols, management 
applications, languages, sovereignties, etc. under the constant 
duress of competition, crime, disruption actions, normative 
competition and cyber warfare, egos, lack of understanding, 
misunderstandings, and budgetary issues.

Now the concept of simultaneous VGNs has started being discussed on 
the IUCG mailing list (http://vgnic.org), the HomeRoot project will 
provide it the neecssary core. The "EZoP" project (standing for 
"Evaluation de la Zone Primaire", i.e. top zone exploration) should 
come in parallel. Its purpose will be to document the current real 
status of the root zone. Obviously, the HomeRoot approach removes the 
danger of name space pollution, drastically limits the risks of 
metadata leaks and attacks, and probably speeds-up the resolution 
process average time. It will most probably help the experimentation 
of Content Centric and Semantic networking, LISP, IUI (Intelligent 
Use Interface) and multitechnology and IDNA2008/enhanced 
multilinguistic support, DNS Classes, Virtual Global Community 
Networks, IUse documentation and teaching, distributed processing and 
programming, multihomming based security, intellition (relational 
intelligence to infer non communicated information) applied R&D, and 
more generally the developpement and deployement of the missing 
presentation layer six and the resulting added capabilities.

We will then learn about the possible specific needs in terms of MS 
internetwork intergovernance and information repositories. Then, we 
will be probably more able to document our needs and possibilities. 
We will then discuss mutual cooperation among VGNs, including the 
"globalized" ARPA/NTIA ICANN and IANA, and with different US FCC 
national equivalents (maybe the new ICANN is by then supervised by a 
neutral communication authority).


>One additional point to consider in constructing a new arrangement 
>is that Verisign operates the master root server, from which all the 
>updates are distributed to other servers, under a contractual 
>cooperative agreement that is entirely separate from USG links to 
>ICANN.  It would not accomplish much in the way of global IG MS if 
>we got the IANA changes, but the Department of Commerce and Verisign 
>continued, as they do today, to have a choke hold on updates to the A server.

Signed agreements are made to be respected.

1. In an HomeRoot VGN context this has far less impact since there is 
no globally accessible recursion. This should, however be addressed 
through digital name classes if there was no possible conflict 
resolution between VGNICs considering class unique authoritative 
roots as either free top zone situational reports or paid executive orders.
2. All what WGNICs needs is a single copy of the U.S. Department of 
Commerce version of the IN (ICANN/NTIA) class public root file as it 
used to be available on the U.S. InterNIC site licensed to ICANN.


The target now is to discuss and introduce a VGN "HomeRoot" 
experimentation I_D, and start developping a few HOMENIC 
installation/management tools. Most of the experimentation consists 
in a real live check that (1) not a single bit is to be changed, (2) 
there is no DNS pollution and (3) users do not experiment access 
errors and (4) are immune to ICE actions.

jfc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140214/f12071df/attachment.html>