[discuss] shifts in IANA/accountability discussion: your thoughts?
Michel S. Gauthier
mg at telepresse.com
Sat Jun 21 23:09:39 UTC 2014
At 19:39 21/06/2014, willi uebelherr wrote:
>I hope that my intervention in the discussion with Michel is not a
No, it is not. The response to Joseph called for some internal
debate, the worked out response will come later on.
>What we can delegate on positive tasks to the representative state
>organisations other then to organize an environment, that are
>helpful for the people and her activities? This is the only
>substantiation for their existence.
>And if we understand, that the free communication over geografical
>and time distances is a basic instrument to organize our life in a
>network oriented structure then we come immediately to the point to
>organize the communication as a task of the society for the the
>society. As a task of the community for the community.
>This means also, to disolve all private interests in the
>organisation of the immaterial transportsystems, in the transport
>system for information.
>And if we follow the technical requirements for data transport we
>immediatly come to the same results.
I think everyone agrees. The difference is between the way to achieve
a task of the community for the community. Here is the comment of
Jefsey Morfin on the issue:.
At 23:43 21/06/2014, jefsey wrote:
>The entire world agreed with Willi until 1977 because innovation
>came at a moderate speed. So, it was possible to consider the same
>service for all paid by all through a national equalization process.
>Two kinds of innovations by then accelerated innovation:
>* the provision of bandwidth (radiowaves and satellite;
>* and datacommunications [Telenet and Tymnet].
>The consensus developped in Congress hearings and at the FCC that
>the best way to come with the best solutions at lowest costs was
>competition rather than regulation. This has led to deregulation all
>over the world.
>The problem however was cross-subsidization and how to warranty a
>neutral market for a fair and true competition. This is not possible
>when money and power come from content and publicity. This creates
>an unstable situation, because the "status-quo" has focused on low
>layers (hardware and edge services) in order to retain the resulting
>"huge bounty" (cf. RFC 6852). Instead of using it for all of us.and
>helping the innovation evolution at the upper layers which will
>dramatically change the network economy: the end of the "edge bubble".
>The coming economy will call for lower hardware investment, more
>intelligent software (SDN, cloud, big data) and will increasingly
>focus on brainware (smart use together, hence users' distributed
>financing, local and non-profit ). The edge provider money is based
>upon nations' infrastructural investement (the roads) and the
>internet (inbound/outbound) dissimetry inherited from ... V.23. This
>is an innacceptable constraint against user distributed edge
>equality. This is however a big chance as it makes geographically
>localized low cost inter-networked non-profit "hazes" appealing to
>support optimized entangled VGNs, as opposed to global commercial "clouds".
>This is why the current situation is unstable: local inter-networked
>smart hazes at layer six presentation do not need ICANN and only a
>limited set of IPv4 adresses for their local AS gateways (LISP?).
>Smart meshed SDNs to replace NATs. This is why we need to organize a
>coordinated ICANNTIA transfer contingency plan. soon, the NTIA
>transfer is likely not to be to ICANN but to us, the multitude.
A vision that can be discussed. What if he and you are ight?
M S G
More information about the discuss