[discuss] Thoughts welcome on proposed Netmundial submission

Jefsey jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon Mar 3 15:56:08 UTC 2014

At 00:13 03/03/2014, joseph alhadeff wrote:
>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?

This is what experimentation is to determine.

The whole story is simple.
1. Competition is something you can only prevent by monopoly. You 
have two form of monopoly: state (law)  and radical (politically 
correct). Currently the US law and the ICANN politically correct are 
enforced and contested (currently three accepted VGNICs: ICANN, China, ORSN).
2. Someone has to endorse the decision to deregulate. But no one 
wants to be accused of the possible mess. So they look for a 
scapegoat. I*coalition agreed that the scapegoat would be "economy" 
(RFC 6852). ICANN proposed them to make BRICS, i.e. the US oponents 
in Dubai, the scapegoat through Sao Paulo.

The VGN concept, supported by the http://vgnics.net proposition of 
experimental enhanced cooperation, respects the IETF Tao, the 
currently enforced ICANN policy (ICP-3) and the resolutions of the 
WSIS, in introducing an experimentation. We will see if a polycratic 
MS solution emerge (we mutually inform one another and each one 
decides for him/her/itself). If it does we have the solution. If it 
does not we will know that MS (we discuss but not apply for 10 years) 
is not the good solution. In any case it is a side contribution that 
does not interfer with any other discussion. However, other solutions 
could benefit from its experience and result and should take its 
experimental project into account.


>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, etc.
>>To get real may help.
>>discuss mailing list
>>discuss at 1net.org
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org

More information about the discuss mailing list