[discuss] 1net discuss and VGNICs

Michel Gauthier mg at telepresse.com
Fri Feb 28 13:00:46 UTC 2014

At 05:27 28/02/2014, John Curran wrote:
>On Feb 27, 2014, at 8:12 PM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
> >> I honestly cannot discern any indication of interest by those on 
> the 1net discuss list to expanding the discussion to include 
> governance questions applicable to VGNICS in general (as opposed to 
> simply discussion of governance aspects of the "ICANN VGNIC").

This is more subtle. This list has been created by ICANN order in 
order to discuss the Internet Governance, whithout addressing the 
first question of Nathalie: "What is the internet?", implying that 
the ICANN community is the Internet community. Elisabeth testifies 
that she does not belong to the ICANN community, for QoS reasons that 
may affect every of us, but that she obviously belongs to the 
internet community. Jefsey will explain that we are more widely 
members of the digiphere ecosystem.

What Greg, Don, Marylin, etc. do is to give an inadequate boring but 
real notoriety to VGNs. This protects ICANN from going to the bottom 
of the things. However, it leads intelligent people (and there are 
many of them on this list) to understand the trick and to ask 
themslves why does ICANN need or leave it to develop. Technically 
ICANN is a VGNIC along the definition given on 
http://vgnics.net/vgnics. It was very simple to ICANN to acknoweldge 
it or to contest it. Rather than not commenting Elisabeth's quote of Joe Sims.

> > 2. discuss at 1net.org: it is about the Internet governance,
> > i.e. about the VGNICS intergovernance.
>No... can't find any reference to VGNICS on 1net site, only 
>Internet.  You have chosen to equate the two, but that doesn't mean 
>everyone else subscribes to that belief system.

You are right. Please remember, I only wish to be an humble and 
rigorist analyst. I read people who equates VGN/VGNICs with more than 
the Internet, and I have no one who says otherwise.

If I might venture a personal suggestion it would be to follow 
Elisabeth's rather than Jefsey's approach (according to her). i.e. to 
split the internet end to end layers from an interplus fringe to 
fringe layers (as per the Brian Carpenter's model). This way we could 
have two different items:

- the internet governance (ING) discussed in Sao Paulo and at the GAC 
with Govs. Technically supported at the IETF.
- the interplus governance (IPG) discussed at the IGF with everyone 
interested (Govs, business, CS, techies and academics). Technically 
supported at the IUCG.

This would permit ICANN both:
- to stay in its ING Joe Sims' legal role: i.e. the stability of the 
DNS IN Class owed to the NTIA.
- to freely globalize outside of any USG involvement as a VGNIC (i.e. 
IANA disseminator).

M G  

More information about the discuss mailing list