[discuss] 1net discuss and VGNICs

Fri Feb 28 15:14:04 UTC 2014

Huh? I have discussed legal issues and ICANN processes. Please tell me
where I referred to VGNs.

I debated whether to react, but decided to go ahead. I¹m tired of seeing
what I write used as a platform to go off on barely, if at all, related
tangents. If you are suggesting that I have given ³inadequate boring but
real notoriety to VGNs² by responding to messages from IUCG members,
that¹s easy enough to fix.

Don

On 2/28/14, 8:00 AM, "Michel Gauthier" <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:

>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,
>>Yes.
>>
>> > 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  
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss