[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
mg at telepresse.com
Tue Feb 18 09:54:21 UTC 2014
At 03:46 18/02/2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Certainly. But that would be a pretty standard IT operations issue;
>actually IANA went through that once before, in the transfer from
>ISI to ICANN. That part isn't mysterious; getting rid of the useless
>NTIA contract is the mysterious part, to me.
If you mathematically consider the things this only may happen in two ways:
- either the contract is voided, what is an US matter, and neither
you nor me are US citizens, so we have no democratic say.
- or we ignore it: nothing in our national laws oblige us to call on
NTIA organized services.
The question is therefore how can we ignore it. I understand that the
VGNIC concepts give a solution. If I try to analyse them I understand
that it boils down to:
1. scouting the namespace cartography instead of deciding a part of it.
2. fully using the common DNS tools, i.e. including classes, which
support 35,634 other visions of the internet than the ICANN one.
3. possibly extending the digital names (IUCG uses this terminology
to underline their technological non-specificty) to extend the
internet to the support of other relational use, technologies and industries.
It seems to be a blessed "forget ICANN, stick to RFCs" scenario.
However, I analyse two MS cooperation problems:
- how to organize the VGNIC necessary political intergovernance.
- how to organize an open OpenStand (i.e. an user endorsed RFC 6852)
architectonical MS concertation.
IMHO this is what Paris coming IGF (march 10th) and Sao Paulo (April
23,24th) will more or less consider because this may not yet on the
agendas, but is now definitly is in the options, and HomeRoot and
EZOP experimentations projects will call for. This is not anymore
piggybacking on the ICANN/NTIA root file, it is deploying alternate IANA.
The pending practical question seems to be LISP, CCN and/or
distributed distribution of IPv6 addresses.
More information about the discuss