[discuss] Draft Status Report - [was Problem definition 1, version 4]
george.sadowsky at gmail.com
Thu Jan 23 03:13:18 UTC 2014
I have a concern about some elements in this post, and I will reply specifically to them. My comments are inserted in specific places below.
I find the general tone of this post hypothetical and sufficiently distorted from what I know. I'm responding to a number of statements below, but I don't plan to engage in this dialogue any further.
On Jan 22, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Michel Gauthier wrote:
> At 19:24 21/01/2014, Ben fuller wrote:
>> Whenever I have taught research methods, I always tell my students that defining the research question is the most important part of the process.
> If you want to compare to research, George is only presenting a charter for a tutorial work group.
> 1. The definition of the research question has been formulated by Nathalie and has not yet (and, therefore, not consensually) been answered: "what is the Internet?".
The Internet is a network of networks that are interoperable because they use the same TCP/IP protocol suite. That definition is widely accepted. If it is not satisfactory, perhaps you are asking the wrong question.
> 2. George being a Member of the ICANN BoD (not expressing in his mails until today [while they have been noted by every Gov]that he was not speaking on behalf of ICANN);
I think that my affiliation with ICANN is well-known. In any case, I speak for myself on this list and all others unless specifically noted otherwise.
> 3. George is acting as a de facto WG chair using the ICANN /1Net mailing list as the ICANN/WG/1NET mailing list.
> However, we are not in research here; we are in a political move that disregards most of all the other contextual elements.
We are discussing on a list set up for discussion of Internet governance issues. Political considerations are permitted, as are technical ones, to the extent that they bear on IG issues.
> Some political evaluation questions are (this is part of a draft working report of mine):
> 1. why is George presenting that topic for a pre-Sao Paulo work when this is not a published priority, such an opposition to balkanization or an incentive for IPv6?
To my knowledge there are no published priority topics for 1net. The steering committee has yet to provide any direction for us.
> 2. why is this ICANN/WG/1NET in need of a BRICS co-lead meeting?
I can't respond; I don't understand the question, and I believe that it is based on a false premise.
> The response seems (after yesterday's announcement) to be clear enough now for those used to analyzing the digisphere development. However, why is ICANN adopting such a convoluted approach for an extension of the internet governance "territory"? The only rational explanation at this time seems to be: in order to obtain a significant multilateral endorsement before any open-use wider non-monopolistic vision can develop.
> One must wait for the designation of the 4 committee chairs and the announcement of the 11 lead Govs in order to understand the whole picture. Anyway, the plan of enlarging the internet governance to ICANN introduced newcomers to the detriment of the IETF (Brian Carpenter being active in refusing the concept of a technical governance), the still unorganized net aspects of the FLOSS, IUsers, and of the open use, is architecturally unbalancing (please consider who the Sao Paulo selected "technicians" are, and their branch of expertise).
> This translates into the two current working trends that I have observed that are led by George Sadowsky and JFC Morfin.
> I. ICANN WORKING TREND
> George Sadowsky's preemptive proposition is in line with the usual ICANN attempts (GNSO, AtLarge, Registrars, IANA, gTLDs, DNSSEC, etc.). It consists in switching the ICANN politically attributed "market monopoly" to a self-rooted technical global monopoly, supposedly free from the US Gov umbrella. As usual, this will not work because naming, addressing, and coding belong to the users' use. The ICANN "globalization" move can only lead to a reinforcement of the US uniformity's influence against the users' global internet - as technically observed through Unicode.
My position is not pre-emptive. It is an attempt to explore a recurring issue within Internet governance in a way that is relatively systematic and takes advantage of multiple opinions. If people don't want to talk about anything I post, they are free to ignore it.
The rest of your comment is opinion that I believe presents a distorted point of view.
> However, George's proposition is important enough by what it says on the ICANN ambitions and by the support (people and organizations) it meets. It is necessary to establish the ICANN/BRICS (and other Govs) Sao Paulo settlement over the extension of the ICANN DNS role to ONS.
This is your opinion. My proposition says nothing about ICANN ambitions. I respect your right to have an opinion, but I regard this as useless in terms of addressing real IG issues in the real world.
More information about the discuss