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

Michel Gauthier mg at telepresse.com
Tue Feb 18 00:28:17 UTC 2014

At 21:40 17/02/2014, John Curran wrote:
>Indeed, the issue of the root zone is complex and important.
>However, the issue of the _USG position on the root being property_ 
>is actually
>much simpler - As aptly noted by Phil Corwin, there is no position of record;
>perhaps we should discuss the many known issues rather than creating 
>over positions which haven't been taken?

I am afraid you did not analyze the elements I provided you. Nor the 
context recently documented by Mike Roberts concerning congressmen's 
attitude. Nor any Gov attitude over this kind of elements.

1. I am not interested enough with the matter to investigate Ryan 
Killian's points. May be you could?
2. I have not the copy of the FCC license to Tymnet which is the 
actual proof (or not) of the property but you are welcome to ask the 
FCC for it.
3. we all know that international (communications) politics enough, 
to perfectly know what is the firm metaposition of the USG. Mike 
Roberts expressed it. The question is not a record, the questions are 
the US legitimacy, up to which point other Govs will acknowldge it, 
and for how long, and the interests of the USA.

I am sorry but all this /1NET debate seems a little bit naive. The 
face value of the root file, anyway is less than $ 10.000. So let 
stop arguing on it. Who is going to fight for its US copy ????

The ICANN/NTIA root file, its management, the root-server system, 
ICANN, the ICANN contracts, the ARIN, etc. are part of an American 
sovereign system,Tthe American people know their national and 
international stability depends upon it. So, do the other countries. 
As such they are a legitimate and true proprerty of the USA.

If other people want something equivalent for themselves, either they 
obtain it from friendly Americans (this the US digital umbrella) or 
they rebuild it by themselves and cooperate on an MS equal footing 
with the US Internic - if they do not want to fragment the digisphere 
to everyone's detriment. I suppose we are to wait for the designation 
of the last co-chairing country.

This is the purpose of the IUsers' EZOP system as far as I understand it.

The only pending question which is still pending from this 
osbervation of mine is the IP addressing. Question: what will the 
RIRs and GIXs do if Sao Paulo - or a subsequent meeting - concludes 
(wha seems MS-likely) that each significant VGNIC is entitled to the 
management of a portion of the IPv6 addressing plan, in addition to a 
few DNS classes?

You know, I do not support any position: I just report what I believe 
I observe.

M G  

More information about the discuss mailing list