[discuss] shifts in IANA/accountability discussion: your thoughts?

Sat Jun 21 23:09:39 UTC 2014

At 19:39 21/06/2014, willi uebelherr wrote:
>Dear Joe,
>I hope that my intervention in the discussion with Michel is not a 
>disturbance.

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 