[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
jefsey at jefsey.com
Tue Feb 18 19:15:44 UTC 2014
You discuss US internal politics. We are certainly friendly toward
your endeavor and the US. In a network, the common best interest is
the sum of all the best interests. However, I agree that
"proicannians from all countries, unite! Behind a unique US
root!" sounds old and is the best interest of "trademark holders and
US law enforcement interests" that think, as you say, that they are
directing ICANN through Capitol Hill (cf. Mike Roberts' comment).
The defense of their interests is legitimate but ItCANNot be the only
obsolete manner to conceive the internet globality.
- Because it is legitimate, there is no reason to waste time and
energy in opposing them.
- Because it is not unique, it is smarter to build other global,
multistakeholders' structured visions and negotiate in a strength position.
Don't distroy. Build aside and be more attractive.
A) The DNS/NameSpace is not a problem, since RFCs have established
classes. Let ICANN reorganize as it needs, and let people organize
things the way they need/want it.
B) The address issue is more complex, as there were initially six
IPv6 numbering plans, but with so many RFCs and no I*Book it is
difficult to get things sorted. There are at least six possible
visions that we can build upon, and that we have to discuss in order
to help the NRO to adapt.
0) status quo.
1) IPv4 + Lisp
2) IPv6 + national dictates (one country or one community decides to
unilaterally use a chunk of addresses)
3) IPv6 + VGNIC distribution
5) a new innovative network vision that could accommodate all of them.
All I know is that a global network for me is the capacity to access
everywhere in the world, with my computer, with my way of using it,
in my language, along my country's laws, under the protection of my
government, etc. We try to suppress visas, national hassles, etc. Is
that to rebuild them on the net? Technology must understand the way I
speak, I behave, I think, I live, etc., and facilitate it everywhere,
translating it everywhere to everyone, so that we can all get along
better. We have not broken the geographical and technical barriers
down to trade (TBT) in order to build trade and political barriers on
the net among us. I like the landscape, but I have nothing to do with
the US Control Hill.
Sorry to sound blunt, but we have to be clear with politicians, TM
holders, merchants, etc. about our targets: my keyboards, my
processors, and my screens are not a US, or a Google, or an NSA
colony, and I do not have the intention of becoming a US citizen any
more than you wish to become a French citizen (HR, art. 15) in a
French VGN. Rigidity is going to balkanize the internet,
interpenetration and entanglements of our VGNs is the way to
definitely unite it. The life is as complex as Liberty. In democracy
it is not hierarchical.
At 16:13 18/02/2014, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>This 2008 proposed bill (which did not pass) is a good example of
>why we need to get rid of the linkage between NTIA and IANA. The
>demand for keeping this link comes from various political interests
>who are stronger in the US environment - primarily trademark holders
>and US law enforcement interests, both of whom want to restrict name
>space expansion and use DNS licensing and Whois to regulate and
>surveill users as much as possible.
>These interest groups have strong established lobbying ties to the
>US Congress and can use them to pressure NTIA and ICANN. They
>believe that if ICANN becomes fully globalized and multistakeholder
>they will be relatively less powerful than they would be if NTIA
>keeps the tether to ICANN in place.
>From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
>Behalf Of manning bill
>Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 10:25 PM
>To: John Curran
>Cc: discuss at 1net.org List
>Subject: Re: [discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
>Howdy John... Perhaps this is what is wanted?
>Note that this went to committee, where is appears to have died.
>Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
>On 17February2014Monday, at 19:03, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
> >> ...
> >> You know, I do not support any position: I just report what I
> believe I observe.
> > Michel -
> > You indicated that it is your understanding that "the USG position is
> > that the root is an US property" and then failed to provide any data
> > supporting the existing of _any_ official USG position on the matter.
> > If you should happen to observe an actual USG position, thenit would
> > indeed be good information for the folks on this list to know about...
> > Thanks!
> > /John
> > Disclaimer: My views alone.
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss