[discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation
Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
Wed Jan 8 21:02:03 UTC 2014
Le 8 janv. 2014 à 21:21, John Curran a écrit :
> On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>> ICANN/IANA are. And therefore everything that comes under ICANN's patronage and funding (1net...) has an obvious link to DoT. That makes quite a grouping. It would be naive not to put the I* under the same umbrella. IETF has a NSA employee at his board.
> Wow. I am actually not even sure how to respond to the above given the layers
> of error but obviously must start somewhere -
*Thanks for the effort but I am actually not even sure I was trying to detail all the functions, links, etc you kindly describe below. The ICANN/IANA mention is plain enough for all of us to understand what I am talking about. Do not need more than 3 words.
> ICANN does have a NTIA contract to perform "IANA Functions.", which includes
> the administration of various registries of parameter values for Internet protocols.
You bring precision thanks, but you do not contradict the link I was mentioning. You reinforce it. And by the way the link is still there.
> ICANN also has an MOU with the IAB/IETF (RFC 2860) to carry out certain
> tasks, consisting of the administration of various registries of parameter values
> for Internet protocols.
> That is actually two mandates; both are specifically applicable to the IANA tasks.
> The IANA tasks are a very small part of ICANN, and trying to point to the IANA
> contract as a USG "link" to ICANN's greater overall activities make no sense.
> Yes, there is a Affirmation of Commitments that has effect on ICANN's activities,
> and a GAC that has impact, but the IANA contract itself doesn't provide useful
> control (except under the "nuclear" option of its cancelation)
> The I* leader coordination meetings have no mandate, patronage, or funding from
> the USG. In fact, they've been convened generally by Lynn St. Amour of ISOC, with
> each participant picking up travel and related costs. You might as well assert that
> both IGF and UN also come under the USG's patronage as a result of ICANN's
Do you mean that the I-stars have no active part in the asymmetric role of the 'US' over IG?
(I am pretty convinced that the I-stars meeting are paid directly by the organizers. Don't need to call in the USG unless your fundings have not been properly organized in agreement with who it may concerns. Also pretty sure that no of you had to pay from his own personal pocket as well. That would be outrageous. Even though some of us do sometime put from their own money in a cause that resonates with the global common good. We must be a little crazy I presume.
I would not put in your mouth words that you haven't pronounced or even thought loudly. So I give you back your sentence about "...both IGF and UN ..."
> And finally, none of the above relates to "1net", which may have be consequential
> to the Montevideo Statement, but in fact will determine its purpose and methods
> once it has a seated coordinating/steering committee.
May I suggest that this comment is wrong? And not just a little wrong.
The 1net was obviously discussed among the I-stars before the statement was issued. 1net was a pre-statement idea. You do not launch such an idea without an overall idea regarding budget, strategy, project leaders, global timing, advantages, dangers, feasibility... The timing of the announcement can be described as following the meeting. If it was consequential, I doubt that such professionals folks like the I-stars CEOs would have signed for it without any previous strategical agreement and consensus. The critical idea is not about the details of how it will function. The critical idea is its existence, and the 'political' objective. You can leave the logistics, the steering committee to the troopers and their officers.
FYG as well.
The Global Project
> John Curran
> President and CEO
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss