joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Thu Jan 23 08:26:16 UTC 2014
What does your concept of mutlistakeholder enhanced cooperation look like operationally and are these more encompassing organizational structures designed to be effective and efficient in either decision-making or running some of the DNS operations? The concept of stability is of great importance, as you noted, and some proposed solutions do raise questions related to stability. It would be of great utility for alternate proposals to include descriptions of operational dimensions and for commentators to reaffirm the need to assure continued operational stability of the Net, including the need to review and pressure test before changes are implemented. Reverting to a previous post, take the Hippocratic oath approach; first do no harm...
Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 22, 2014, at 10:54 PM, jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> At 20:25 22/01/2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> > how could we really
>> > ensure an 'open Internet' by allowing various ISPs to provide
>> > services through the same cables? Could cables enabling
>> > multiple ISP access be a requirement for 'net neutrality'?
> The question is also what you mean by net neutrality.
> In addition, in spite of the laudable Jorge trust's, you can NOT even trust that the overall architecture and technology will do its best to send a data packet from point A to point B. Please read http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3238 to understand why, which is purely architectural. RFC 3914, 4037, 4496 can then be of interest.
> All that boils down to your initial question which is "what is the internet".
> The internet actually is a bunch of IETF documents. Joe Sims that Michel Gauthier quoted is the lawyer who wrote the ICANN by-laws and was its initial (well paid lawyer). The real interest of ICANN is that Joe Sims contractually transformed technical adhesion to this bunch of IETF documents in an a contractual obligation. This created the ICANN community. Then ICANN itself, seeing that its own contract with the NTIA was not enough, signed a Declaration of Commitment.
> Business needs stability. ICANN tries to "sell" its contractual stability as a trustable island in an untrusted ocean. This is certainly a good idea. The mistake is that ICANN was designed to only trust the USG instead of being able to mutually builid an archipelago of trust (what the WSIS has called enhanced cooperation).
> As a result ICANN wants to lead an MS process rather than participate to an enhanced cooperation that MS endeavours could trust. The OpenStand and the Montevideo statement could have permitted Sao Paulo to consider a multinational enhanced cooperation. It is now clear that Sao Paulo is not about stabilizing trust but about extending the ICANN reach, and therefore its distrustable instability.
> We will certainly wait and see if BRICS/OECD could come up with a credible complement. But our hopes have decreased.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss