[discuss] Contributions to NETmundial

[John Curran]

On Mar 12, 2014, at 7:23 AM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:

> Multistakeholderism is about organizing together the ulterior, the virtual, i.e. artificial space where the US wants to be the Empire and no more an island off the unique authoritative ISO ruled continent.

Interesting assertion in light of the history; if the USG's goal is "to be 
the Empire" of this space, they are certainly going about it the wrong way...

In particular, I'm not certain why they would have bothered with allowing 
the establishment of ICANN at all.  Once established, USG terminating its 
MOU/JPA with ICANN (to replaced with the far more high-level oversight 
provided by the AoC) was also a step in the wrong direction.

I do not believe that the the USG policy with respect to the Internet is 
driven by purely altruistic goals; it appears to be a pragmatic approach 
anchored in recognition of the benefits that a stable and open Internet 
provide in advancement of democratic values.

> There is only a way to organize a democratic internet: it is that the US colonizes the cyberspace. They try doing it through "globlization", i.e. pretenting that this is MS, i.e. the conceptual opposite to democracy ("we hate king, presidents, and votes, we only believe in running code and living mode" [cf. IUCG]: we concert our individial sovereign decisions).

Their "colonization" effort seems particularly inept, since on the current
trajectory they may actually end up with a role which is in no way unique 
when compared to the role of any other government...  The only thing that
I actually see being "exported" is a fundamental belief in the power of the
Internet (and the collaboration it enables) as a powerful force for social
and economic development.

> There is a way to organize a multitechnology internet, it is to complete Vint Cerf's project: VGNs at the presentation layer level. As JFC says "the networks of the network of networks".

Yes, your views on this are well known to the readers of this list, and at
this point probably don't warrant repeating.

> This is an MS world where everyone from ICANN to me (I am strictly *analyzing* the proposition, no more) is the VGNIC of their own VGN, associated in the polycratic Digital Name Services Association pragmatically inspired from the Milton's democratic propoistion. The relation between ICANN and the DNSA is simple: ICANN is one among inter DNSA pares.
> 
> I am just floating the way I analyze VGNs, to see the comments.

And now that everyone has heard you espouse this yet again, it would good if 
you could allow those interested in the "VGN for which ICANN is the VGNIC" 
(using your terminology) to discuss options for its coordination within that 
context - you already have general VGN mailing lists for those interested.

To continue to undermine efforts here regarding the discussions of ICANN and
IANA evolution is disavow your VGN principles, specifically disallowing the 
rights of those who choose to concert their "individual sovereign" efforts 
towards this particular VGN - either respect their individual right to work
within this limited context or cease asserting that your vaunted VGN model
respects their right to do so...

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.