<html>
<body>
At 22:42 13/02/2014, Mike Roberts wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">However much many of us might
dislike it, the fact is that the U.S. Congress and senior govt ministries
hold trump cards if a proposal emerges that offends them. In the
present atmosphere of worldwide terrorist attacks and threats, they are
easily offended.<br><br>
Although some might favor a proposal that dwells on the many deficiencies
of USG behavior toward ICANN and IANA, it would be much more productive
to have one that results in the active engagement of the U.S. in making
it happen, rather than being consigned to the large dustbin of schemes
that attracted political disfavor. The wording of Ian's PS above is the
type of thing that attracts "disfavor."</blockquote><br>
Mike,<br><br>
Squaring the circle is always complex, but <a name="_GoBack"></a>I think
you are definitely right. <br><br>
This is why the only non hurting way to proceed is by superior law: the
internet law, which is the source code. The code documented in 7,500
RFCs, that is implemented everywhere and that not even the U.S. Congress,
senior ministries, executive orders, USCC action, Academics, Techies, CS
lawyers, HR activists, and business interests can modify (look at the
delay for IPv6).<br><br>
This is exactly what ICANN organized (your July 2001 Internet
Coordination Policy statement no. 3) and that the "HomeRoot"
experimentation project is to strictly and fully respect in order to
investigate an MS grassroots internet governance system, or as a set of
local, national or global community [cf. RFC 6852] democratic or not
governance systems if the MS grassroots so decide, <br><br>
* in parallel to the U.S. Congress' ARPANET interneting (i.e. virtual
global network) governance vested <br>
* with a good cooperation spirit: our vitual networks share the common
physical catenet on an equal footing. <br>
<br>
A governance of the governances should then emerge for the network of
networks (or an intergovernance? My 10 year old
<a href="http://intergovernance.org/">http://intergovernance.org</a> site
is still unchanged). Rather than fragmenting the internet, it will
pile global governances with the same interest for a unique and global
multilingual, multitechnology and multitrade system, dramatically
augmenting its resillience. <br><br>
I doubt that there is any other way to address this problem in any other
manner (it being dictatorial, democratic, MSist, consensual, etc.)
because it is an entangled (networked) set of legitimacies, capacities,
interests, greed, technical protocols, management applications,
languages, sovereignties, etc. under the constant duress of competition,
crime, disruption actions, normative competition and cyber warfare, egos,
lack of understanding, misunderstandings, and budgetary issues.<br><br>
Now the concept of simultaneous VGNs has started being discussed on the
IUCG mailing list
(<a href="http://vgnic.org/" eudora="autourl">http://vgnic.org</a>), the
HomeRoot project will provide it the neecssary core. The "EZoP"
project (standing for "Evaluation de la Zone Primaire", i.e.
top zone exploration) should come in parallel. Its purpose will be to
document the current real status of the root zone. Obviously, the
HomeRoot approach removes the danger of name space pollution, drastically
limits the risks of metadata leaks and attacks, and probably speeds-up
the resolution process average time. It will most probably help the
experimentation of Content Centric and Semantic networking, LISP, IUI
(Intelligent Use Interface) and multitechnology and IDNA2008/enhanced
multilinguistic support, DNS Classes, Virtual Global Community Networks,
IUse documentation and teaching, distributed processing and programming,
multihomming based security, intellition (relational intelligence to
infer non communicated information) applied R&D, and more generally
the developpement and deployement of the missing presentation layer six
and the resulting added capabilities. <br>
<br>
We will then learn about the possible specific needs in terms of MS
internetwork intergovernance and information repositories. Then, we will
be probably more able to document our needs and possibilities. We will
then discuss mutual cooperation among VGNs, including the
"globalized" ARPA/NTIA ICANN and IANA, and with different US
FCC national equivalents (maybe the new ICANN is by then supervised by a
neutral communication authority). <br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">One additional point to consider
in constructing a new arrangement is that Verisign operates the master
root server, from which all the updates are distributed to other servers,
under a contractual cooperative agreement that is entirely separate from
USG links to ICANN. It would not accomplish much in the way of
global IG MS if we got the IANA changes, but the Department of Commerce
and Verisign continued, as they do today, to have a choke hold on updates
to the A server.</blockquote><br>
Signed agreements are made to be respected. <br><br>
1. In an HomeRoot VGN context this has far less impact since there is no
globally accessible recursion. This should, however be addressed through
digital name classes if there was no possible conflict resolution between
VGNICs considering class unique authoritative roots as either free top
zone situational reports or paid executive orders.<br>
2. All what WGNICs needs is a single copy of the U.S. Department of
Commerce version of the IN (ICANN/NTIA) class public root file as it used
to be available on the U.S. InterNIC site licensed to ICANN.<br><br>
<br>
The target now is to discuss and introduce a VGN "HomeRoot"
experimentation I_D, and start developping a few HOMENIC
installation/management tools. Most of the experimentation consists in a
real live check that (1) not a single bit is to be changed, (2) there is
no DNS pollution and (3) users do not experiment access errors and (4)
are immune to ICE actions.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
</body>
</html>