[discuss] On the technical side
jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon Mar 17 17:02:26 UTC 2014
At 16:52 17/03/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>It is to my great chargrin, actually, that I continue to hold US
>citizenship; but also, I'm loathe to make generalizations across
>categories like "non-Americans", which strikes me as being one so
>broad as to be not very meaningful.
> > The difference however between you and me, is that you have an
> existing legally committed business proposition with customers,
> while I oppose its framework and therefore have none, but need one
> for my fellows from the multitude. This means that your operations
> are directly affected, mine far less.
> Given your level of concern about the IANA Trust document and its
> impact, you
> must have already started your legal efforts (which would explain
> you raising
> the issue on this list.)
> What has your investigations into its legal implications
> unveiled? How do you
> believe your operations (or anyones, for that matter) will be affected?
Dear Andrew, and John,
1. What is discussed is a legal context change at the USG's
initiative, not ours (it was denied in Dubai). John supports this
context change proposition. Andrew does not see why he should care if
no one points good reasons to him.
- NTIA says: by 2015 we are gone. Good news.
- But it also says: at that date my successor will be the
(Multi-StatusHolders, no Gov implied) ICANN I wish. Note taken.
- You (the 14 StatusHolders) have to sell us this change. BTW, we do
not need that change, because we did do with NTIA and ICANN but we do
not need ICANN.
Therfore, our decision is about using this new ICANN solution of
yours (ICANN StatusHolders) or not. And you tell us "too soon to
consider building our sales pitch to convince you", "we do not care",
"we are not going to do any effort to convince you: up to you to
discuss with us our possible traps".
Well, we were not excited about your product before. There are a few
chances that you make us change our mind with such an attitude.
2. We fully understand that the NTIA interest is to normalize the
legal situation to the US advantage in switching from exception to
common legal process, i.e. from White House to Congress and US
lawyers (they have not made enough money so far with the internet).
You provide us immediately a very good experimental explanation why:
when somethng will happen, we (non-US based interests) will have to
build the case, before you (US based bodies) care.
Thank you. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
3. John, you ask about specific points. This worries us a lot. If you
genuinely do not see that documents refering to the US laws, codes,
decisions, etc. every other line might raise some problem in an
international conflicting context, it means you are totally
unprepared to it. Please understand that we need partners we can
technically trust. If you are not ready to deal with the
international laws, rules, etc. context and the NTIA removes its
political shield, how will you do? We need all the countries to be on
an equal footing, meaning also the US. You show us that we have to
bring you to speed and pray for the FCC to enter the game, for us to
have an interlocutor we can understand and deal with. ICANN is
nothing by itself. It only exists as an NTIA affiliate. Its M$ 100
budget and quick and dirty Sao Paulo meeting does not make it an
international institution, a private sector Internet ITU!
The misunderstanding was visible enough with the reaction to the
HomeRoot and VGN concepts introduction. There is real work ahead if
the NTIA is to be replaced by the Congress on US issues. Please
understand that the NTIA backing was the winning factor of the
people the acceptance round the world: they thought someone was in
the cockpit of the global internet. With the NTIA being replaced by
the Congress, this might look good for the US TNCs and open
opportunities for some military cyber-positions, but all over the
world, the multitude will understand that the initial NTIA/ICANN
situation is normalized and replaced by their national Parliament,
their Chamber of Commerce and their own multitude's initiatives.
There is something amiss in your evaluation. Let get real. ICANN is
not real. It is a bubble blown by the NTIA! If ITU is not taking
over, the Multitude will.
The internet needs something reliable, secure, stable, trusted, operationnal.
More information about the discuss