[discuss] Thoughts welcome on proposed Netmundial submission
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Sun Mar 2 23:13:01 UTC 2014
While open markets and level competitive playing fields are some of the
boilerplate terms business often requests, do these competing system
solutions lead to the possibility of confusion or fragmentation that
could impact stability or operational functionality of the existing
operational and governance mechanisms?
On 3/2/2014 10:39 AM, Jefsey wrote:
> At 14:01 02/03/2014, John Curran wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>> > At 12:11 02/03/2014, John Curran wrote:
>> >> The fact that the functions are presently performed at ICANN under
>> some credible representation
>> >> of the will of the Internet community does not imply that will be
>> the case in 5 or 10 years if there is
>> >> no particular reason for ICANN to do so.
>> > There is only one single, known and accepted reason why ICANN would
>> continue performing a good service: it is competition in an open
>> market (cf. OpenStand/RFC 6852). This is the purpose of the VGNICS
>> experimental project to practically foster that competition. ...
>> That is an interesting perspective, jfc, but I don't think that
>> precludes folks on this list from discussing other mechanisms for
>> ICANN oversight if so desired.
> But they should not:
> - stay legally theoric and bath themselves in angelic utopia. They
> should ask themselves first: how will we impose that to NSAs from the
> entire world.
> - disregard that hypothesis (or others by Govs). Considering ICANN as
> the center of its world and ignoring the external trends will leave
> them unprepared. I note that VGNICS is not particularly interested in
> the DNS namespace, but in the digisphere naming. This includes ONS,
> ECP, FaceBook, Tweeter, etc. etc. as well as CCN, semantic addressing,
> To get real may help.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss