[discuss] A plea to refocus our efforts

Jefsey jefsey at jefsey.com
Wed Mar 26 08:58:01 UTC 2014


Some time ago, you introduced a second approach for this list. I 
positively answered it. That has been the end of it so far. I can 
only conclude that this list is another ICANN hoax.

If the US executive branch has really been beheaded and ICANN is the 
only possible salvation source according to you, please speak more 
clearly in using the words of the multitude. Otherwise, why would we 
(IUsers) waste time in trying to find a compromise that you do not 
want? You are the only ICANN BoD member who seems ready to discuss, 
[not yet to negotiate]: if ICANN is serious about /1NET why are all 
the BoD members not on the list that would thereby show us why we 
should trust them.

1. Our user world is simple:

- it is made of VGNs sharing the same bandwidth (basic services) 
along a main catenet (value added services), led and documented by 
their VGNICs (extended network services).

- the US law has permitted datacommunications development in 
separating them as "enhanced" services (by ISPs) from regulated 
Telcos. However, they did not legally clarify the competing confusion 
between value-added and extended services. This is a local issue that 
only laws (US Congress) can solve.

- the largest VGNICs so far is the INTERNIC (which has included IP 
addresses in the NIC responsibilities) due to the direct support of 
its Gov. This Gov retires, transferring its involvement to ICANN, and 
putting US Judges and Congress in first line when US issues are involved.

- the second VGN is CNNIC.

- One is developing: the GS1 ONS.

- We are uncertain about the ITU majority. Sao Paulo may tell if 
things have changed since Dubai.

2. Your propositions amount to (if I read correctly the principles 
among the topics particular to ICANN):

2.1. an alliance of a future of more powerful NICs and NIC-providers 
(labeled as MSs) and possibly ISPs that do not show-up on the /1NET 
list, around the "IANA" whatever it may be.

2.2. no intent to help/consider smaller and trade VGNs to respond the 
innovation needs of the multitude.

If your discourse does not change, and you do not want to consider 
the multitude on an equal footing with the 
"stake/status/share-holders" why would people from the multitude like 
me trust you?

Frankly, we prefer:
- to trust and best use the technology (i.e. the law) of our machines,
- disengage as much as we can from any need of derivative work that 
the IETF Trust could legally block.
- develop the cultural, trade, and quality of life technologies and 
network extensions that we may be pleased with.

Our priority is, therefore, to find allies (including our Govs), 
robustly document our assets, and see how VGN (of any size) masters 
can take the best advantage from them and build ahead.


PS. Depending on your response I will consider or not yourtypically 
"diktyarchic" (see my previous mail you certainly read) mail of this 
morning. Obviously, if this is the way the ICANN BoD wishes to direct 
the flock of its stakeholders, I feel the response to the NTIA has 
already been already given by the Brazilian Parliament.

On 05:19 26/03/2014, George Sadowsky said:
>I have real concern regarding the future of this list.
>There have now been more than 2,000 posts to the list.  I'm sure 
>that they have been useful for a number of proposes, including 
>edition for people who read the list, presentation of approaches to 
>=Internet governance, clarification of views, definitions of 
>problems, and approaches to solving them.
>Yet for all of its richness for time to time, the ratio of signal to 
>noise on the list has been quite low, and there has not been (in my 
>opinion) any significant movement to defining and solving problems 
>in internet governance.  I have observed the following:
>- some detailed description of some historical periods in Internet technology
>- significant theoretical discussion of issues in political science
>- a schism between people who want to live with the current Internet 
>and others who argue for a very different approach
>- substantial circular arguments regarding political systems that 
>appear to have as the goal the comparison and potential resolution 
>of two particular people's points of view
>- a great deal of negative feeling (both subtle and overt) directed 
>at some people who post
>- ad hominem, disdainful, impolite and destructive attacks with no 
>stated basis of fact
>- substantial ignorance of the Internet coupled with a lack of 
>willingness to learn from other posts
>The combined effect of these issue has been to paralyze the list's 
>ability from time to time to address real problems in Internet 
>governance.  The negative behavior and the lack of serious postings 
>have caused a significant number of people to unsubscribe, when they 
>could have contributed to the various discussions.
>In short, we need to do better or this list will degenerate, much as 
>similar lists have done in the past.   There seems to be a kind of 
>Gresham's law (bad money drives out good money) operating here, 
>where 'bad posts' drive out people who are interested in making 'good' posts.
>This list has promise, and Internet governance needs help.   At 
>present, we are wasting the opportunity that this list offers.
>NTIA has asked ICANN to coordinate the search for a transfer of 
>responsibility for the IANA functions away from the US Government to 
>a new environment.  The search should involve a much larger 
>community that just ICANN.  ICANN has said that the content of the 
>1net list will be a definite contribution to this search.  Therefore 
>anyone with an Internet connection, regardless of time or place, can 
>contribute to this conversation.
>That's the potential value of this list.  Let's exploit it.
>Based upon experience so far with this list, I'd like to suggest 
>some possible guidelines for list use.
>1. The list has a purpose: it is an open, global online forum about 
>Internet governance.  It encourages multiple stakeholder discussion 
>regarding issues of Internet governance, with a view to finding 
>solutions for the myriad of Internet governance issues that now exist.
>2. Posts to the list should be consistent with the objective of the 
>list.  Ideally, most threads should start with an issue, and 
>subsequent posts should move the thread toward a solution (whether a 
>solution is ultimately reached or not).
>3. Everyone on this list has a right to be heard, by posting on this list.
>4. When posting on the list, it's important to be respectful of the 
>opinions of others, and to be as constructive as possible when 
>offering your opinions.
>5. Successful posts use vocabulary that is simple and whose meaning 
>is well-understood by readers of the list.  Successful posts are 
>formatted  with some care so that they are easily readable by others.
>6. Subject lines should clearly reflect the subject of the post. 
>When posts diverge, the subject line should be changed.
>7. List readers have some obligation to review posts to the list, 
>i.e. to listen, and to determine by themselves the value of the 
>information posted.
>8. List readers have the right to _not_ listen to or respond to 
>repeated posts with common themes that have already been posted, 
>perhaps many times.
>9. If there are no responses to a post, posters should not assume 
>that the material they have posted has been agreed to by 
>readers.  People on the list generally have busy lives, and often 
>will not respond to posts.  Statements such as "no one on the list 
>has refuted my statement yet" should not lead to the assumption that 
>others agree with it.  It is equally likely that the post is judged 
>to be incorrect or irrelevant. Readers have no obligation to correct 
>erroneous material that has been posted to the list by others.
>10. When there are clearly divergent views on a subject that appear 
>to be irreconcilable, then little is accomplished by continuing the 
>conversation. It may be better for those participants to continue 
>their discussion on separate lists.  Sometimes It's useful to do an 
>approximate cluster analysis of the participants and their positions 
>in order to identify like-minded groups that may be better off 
>continuing their various discussions separately.
>I would very much like to see some constructive responses to this 
>post.  In the next day or so, I'll post an updated problem for 
>possible discussion.  To the extent that it generates discussion, I 
>very much hope that it will be constructive and offer ideas that 
>have relevance for attacking current issues in Internet governance.
>Thank you for reading this post.
>George Sadowsky
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140326/1ae597ea/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list