alliance at fsp4.net
Sat May 10 10:39:13 UTC 2014
a choice must be done. Like for money: either dollar or bitcoin,
centralized or distributed. What the NTIA wants is an ICANN bitcoin
under US juridiction. To square the circle.
The result is likely to be a dollar, Euro, Yuan, etc. balkan basket.
The only solution is to disband ICANN as an institution and rebuild
it as an MS club (that can fork any time), of which the kernel is an
operational secretariat, and the cement is user trusted efficiency
(controlled by fork contingency). The real problem is the
définition of the granularity of the supported stakeholderism, i.e.
the time to globality of any independent proposition.
This granularity can be institutional and we have
Multi-Statusholderism, financial and we have Multi-Shareholderism, or
relational (i.e. based upon operational relational spaces) and we
have Multi-Stalkholderism (i.e. all those you depend on).
What I observe is that ICANN is the less technically needed structure
of the internet (cf. it is not even a [needed or not] member of
OpenStand). The only effective need I personnaly have that is related
to ICANN is for the NRO; and this only due to an historic choice in
the IPv4 ARPA numbering plan. Every car is perfectly identified
worldwide through its car plate, and there is no ICARR.
as a spokesperson for the fsp4net alliance bootstrap.
At 03:07 10/05/2014, DAVID JOHNSON wrote:
>I think this is a false dichotomy.
>The proposal is not to have a multi-stakeholder operation overseeing
>icann as a multi-stakeholder process.
>That would lead to a "turtles all the way up" absurdity.
>The problem is to come up with some specific set of promises that
>ICANN could make, by contract, regarding what it will and will not do.
>E.g., not use the monopoly control of the root to regulate content.
>Or impose contract conditions not supported by consensus among
>The question is to whom this promise would be made -- and would that
>counter party be appropriately trusted with decisions on when to enforce it?
>That would be an easier question if we created a judicial
>(arbitration) branch that could hear the case.
>Maybe it is not sufficient to allow only registries to "bring the
>case" -- but the alternative would be to give registrants standing.
>All this could be done by contract, without creating any new fluffy
>free standing institutions.
>If we can agree on the list of core obligations we would want an
>icann of the future to be bound by, surely we can agree on some
>rules of "standing" re what groups can bring a case to hold them to it.
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss