<html>
<body>
<br>
George,<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>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.<br><br>
1. Our user world is simple: <br><br>
- 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). <br><br>
- 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.<br><br>
- 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.<br><br>
- the second VGN is CNNIC. <br><br>
- One is developing: the GS1 ONS.<br><br>
- We are uncertain about the ITU majority. Sao Paulo may tell if things
have changed since Dubai. <br><br>
2. Your propositions amount to (if I read correctly the principles among
the topics particular to ICANN):<br><br>
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.<br><br>
2.2. no intent to help/consider smaller and trade VGNs to respond the
innovation needs of the multitude.<br><br>
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?<br><br>
Frankly, we prefer:<br>
- to trust and best use the technology (i.e. the law) of our machines,
<br>
- disengage as much as we can from any need of derivative work that the
IETF Trust could legally block. <br>
- develop the cultural, trade, and quality of life technologies and
network extensions that we may be pleased with.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
jfc<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
On 05:19 26/03/2014, George Sadowsky said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font face="Calibri" size=2>
All,<br>
<br>
I have real concern regarding the future of this list. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
- some detailed description of some historical periods in Internet
technology<br>
<br>
- significant theoretical discussion of issues in political science<br>
<br>
- a schism between people who want to live with the current Internet and
others who argue for a very different approach<br>
<br>
- 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 <br>
<br>
- a great deal of negative feeling (both subtle and overt) directed at
some people who post<br>
<br>
- ad hominem, disdainful, impolite and destructive attacks with no stated
basis of fact<br>
<br>
- substantial ignorance of the Internet coupled with a lack of
willingness to learn from other posts<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
This list has promise, and Internet governance needs help. At
present, we are wasting the opportunity that this list offers.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
That�s the potential value of this list. Let�s exploit it. <br>
<br>
LIST ETIQUETTE AND EXPECTATIONS<br>
<br>
Based upon experience so far with this list, I�d like to suggest some
possible guidelines for list use.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
3. Everyone on this list has a right to be heard, by posting on this
list.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
6. Subject lines should clearly reflect the subject of the post. When
posts diverge, the subject line should be changed.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
CONCLUSION<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Thank you for reading this post. <br>
<br>
George Sadowsky <br>
<br>
</font>_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
discuss@1net.org<br>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" eudora="autourl">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></blockquote></body>
</html>