[discuss] BNA article on Internet transition by US Ambassador Sepulveda and US DoC Assistant Secretary Strickling

Jefsey jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon Mar 24 17:43:31 UTC 2014

At 16:44 24/03/2014, joseph alhadeff wrote:
>Comments inline.
>On 3/24/2014 11:01 AM, Michel Gauthier wrote:
>>At 03:51 24/03/2014, joseph alhadeff wrote:
>>>How would you deal with the desire of a number of 
>>>governments/organizations to internationalize rather than 
>>>globalize Internet Governance without the controls that NTIA has 
>>>placed on the transition?
>>Could you explain which control?
>Perhaps conditions of transfer would be a better phrase than 
>controls. The need for it to be multistakeholder, continued stability etc.

Michel is posing questions. Let facilitate his work. The question 
among ourselves is what if the NTIA decides that the conditions are 
not met. They take everything back and they disavow the work done by 
ICANN to prepare the transfer, so they cannot claim anymore that 
ICANN is mature enough to take over. Embarassing. So, Fadi can take 
his time to show he is the boss. And do it his own way. What if Sao 
Paulo turns to be a Dubai Bis for the US?

The only possibility to avoid instability I see in this case is the 
homeRoot and VGNs as being an complementary solution acceptable to 
everyone without anyone losing the face. But it has to be prepared.

>>Some people feel that NTIA only defaulted its inability to address 
>>the situation on Steve Crocker. They took the word of ICANN 
>>claiming they were an "MS" (whatever it mey means, it is 
>>fashionable) proven expert to decide they were mature enough to 
>>take over the "Internet CARE" before it becomes too much an 
>>International burden. Don't you?
>I only see them turning over the consultation process to ICANN to 
>convene the groups that may suggest the solution, I wasn't reading 
>this as making ICANN the solution to everything.

Well, you know the way ICANN works, i.e. the way the NTIA use to use 
ICANN. This whole thing is prepared since September, and probably 
earlier. Actually, OpenStand was signed in mid-2012, Then Dubai. Then 
Snowden was hired, spent three months as a BAH consultant while Fadi 
negociated his part, then Edward had his tour in China and Russia, 
while Fadi joined ICANN, Dilma had her show in NY, then ICANN joined 
in Montevideo, etc. all these things takes time to be planned, 
reviewed, agreed, organized, settled ....

>And I think all of need to have role in that process it cannot just 
>be the various stakeholders inside ICANN.

Actually, what they need is an approval of the GAC and a brillant 
support by ALAC.

>>>Seems to me that the sense of the list for a solution was what 
>>>they have offered...
>I understand your mistrust of the system, but this is where I am 
>interested in seeing the game play our.  I am usually the cynical 
>one in the room, but I admit that on on this list I'm a rosy optimist :-)

Why not? Things look positive for everyone for the US/OECD 
stakeholders and Govs. Putin will agree to Montevideo against Crimea. 
China does not mind much the ICANN DNS I suppose. The whole world 
might well be OK with that status-quo. As an IUser I am not. Mainly 
because of all this reshuffling does not consider a position for us. 
We belong to the Multitude not to the MS.

I fully understand that MS and Govs do not mind. The question is: how 
long people will stay titytainment consumers, to which speed they 
will become customers, how many will become active IUsers. 
Enthusiastic IUsers can help for free a moderate development. 
Disapointed IUsers may lead to instability.


More information about the discuss mailing list