<html>
<body>
At 16:32 04/04/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">In ICANN as it is, or any
revised version stemming from proposals by Milton, George or others, the
stakeholders are NOT chosen by the top or clearly defined by any
“law.” The ICANN multistakeholder process is an open,
bottom-up, consensus-driven process. Anyone can participate,
whether as a member of an existing “stakeholder group” or not.
Finally, the IANA transition does not require any change in US law or
approval by Congress, although there are admittedly Republican-led
efforts to change that. And the 9/9/19 is one version of a worst
case scenario � assuming we blow throough both the end of the current
contract term and both renewal terms.</blockquote><br>
Greg,<br><br>
We do not have the same strabism. Have not the NTIA, ICANN, Versign
stakeholders been chosen by the USG, the SO stakeholders created by the
bylaws? <br><br>
We are not talking of Wahsington's industry GOP hot flashes, but to adapt
the 1996 Telecommunications Act in agreement with the technology's
reality and other legislations throught out the world. That is if the US
industry wants to directly interface them without Executive help.
Otherwise we will eventually circumvent it. Probably not what your
colleagues in K Street want.<br><br>
Anyway all this chit chat has absolutely no importance whatsoever. <br>
Let get real and serious. The result will be what will be/have been the
people's choice on 19/9/9. You can talk. You can work. This is your
choice now.<br><br>
Best<br>
jfc<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Greg Shatan<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> discuss-bounces@1net.org
[<a href="mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jefsey<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 04, 2014 10:11 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Alejandro Pisanty; John Curran<br>
<b>Cc:</b> discuss@1net.org List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [discuss] Current drive<br>
<br>
Alejandro,<br><br>
1. I agree that Milton's approach (not the solution) is the only one we
can currently work on since George said he is to revamp his position.
<br><br>
2. from your questions, you want to see real actions to be
tested/discussed rather than putative thoughts to be “blah blah
blah”ed. <br><br>
These two points seem to be enough in order to address the issue in the
way the NTIA wishes it.<br><br>
1. there are three possibilities because in real life you do not change
things, you build aside things, so:<br>
<br>
1.0. either the internet is closed and something else is to replace
it.<br>
1.1. either the current system is continued; this is George's line as far
as I understand it. <br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>1.2. or a new system is built and tested in
parallel. <br>
<br>
- This is
where Milton's line should lead us if he was not actually trying to
reform the current system with new ideas.<br>
- This is
what I have triggered and reported, based upon Milton's initial
logic.<br><br>
2. If you consider only the 1.1. and 1.2. options, there are only two
possible known stable systems: top-down or bottom-up. A hybrid
proposition cannot be expected to build-up easily and auto-maintain
stably. The current system is top-down due to the claimed legitimacy from
building the internet is from the leading world power. The NTIA removal
has only two possible results:<br><br>
2.1. either it reinforces the leading power’s influence on stability in
bringing the stability of the leading power's law as a referent instead
of its political executive. This is the NTIA MSist hypothesis. It calls
for an adaptation of the US law (by Congress) before the 9/9/19 date, as
assigned by the NTIA (cf. L. Strickling), if we allow three weeks for a
pre-crash emergency agreement.<br>
<br>
2.2. or it switches to the other stable system: bottom-up and proves that
it has fully assumed the transition before 9/9/19.<br><br>
This means that it is ICANN vs. DNSA. <br>
<br>
In order to clarify the debate, I suggest that<br>
- the “discuss” and
“IANAtransition” keep discussing the 2.1. George/Milton solution
(i.e. ICANN plus possible DNSA), <br>
- and “agora” is the list
to debate the 2.2. solution at
<a href="http://dnsa.org/mailman/listinfo/agora_dnsa.org">
http://dnsa.org/mailman/listinfo/agora_dnsa.org</a>. (i.e. DNSA including
ICANN as a leading stakeholder).<br><br>
Both solutions obviously share the same "MSism" intent that in
European English is called "concertation".<br>
<br>
- In the 2.1. approach, the stakeholders (or partners) are chosen by the
top and have to be clearly defined by the law for the system to be
resilient. The need is to determine the law and to get it implemented and
accepted.<br><br>
- in the 2.2. approach, the partners (or stakeholders) are the multitude,
i.e. everyone who "wishes to be" a participant, like at the
IETF and Wikipedia. There is no leadership, but a steering secretariat
can be forked at any time, making it accountable to the network itself.
By the multitude for the multitude: the DNSes’ Wikipedia.<br><br>
The origin of the whole issue is, therefore, that our known governance
systems do not scale to the globally “catenet”ed human society. We
have to invent one that will be adapted to the new scale of the computer
assisted human gathering and decision processes, beginning with the
governance of that very system. <br>
<br>
- There are those who want to enhance the existing governance to make it
more “democratic”.<br>
- There are those who want to carefully (ICANN/ICP-3 gives good
guidelines) test (a) new system(s), so that evidence will show on
9/9/19which is the one to retain (or if they can cooperate). This is what
the NTIA is calling for.<br><br>
This does not prevent those who think that the proper global granularity
is neither with the doers nor with the users but with the rulers to
pursue an ITU based proposition. IMHO, but this is only on my opinion,
the three systems apply, each at its own stratum in the network pile.
This is why they do not oppose but complete. We have 5.5 years to
observe, learn, and agree how.<br><br>
This being said, I triggered the DNSA for it to belong to everyone and
its own technical target is to be its own “named data system”, so
that the leadership issue is fully diluted in our polycratic networked
society. <br><br>
This is algorithmic governance, it should therefore be algorithmically
governed by public protocol.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
At 07:53 04/04/2014, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:<br><br>
John,<br>
at this point an asymmetric approach to the problem may be productive
(addressing Michael Gurstein and Parminder Jeet Singh as well): <br><br>
Very briefly: Frank LaRue, the UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of
Expression, has proposed for years that instead of defining
"Internet rights" positively, in detail, etc. we focus on the
rights themselves and prevent, prosecute and punish their violations
independently of whether "online" is involved or not
(disclaimer: very briefly, my own summary for this discussion.)<br><br>
In the same mode of thinking the questions about public interest can be
recast. What specifically goes against the public interest, and how vital
is it to solve it? (solving one problem has the cost of opportunity of
not solving others.) A framework similar to risk management (identifying
separately probability and impact; assessing the risk/damage-cost-benefit
relations) may be useful.<br><br>
This approach may quickly lead us to productive steps on the problem
Milton continues to discuss and the one now posed by George. The other
approach seems to me to have been wrung drier than by lyophilization.
<br><br>
Yours,</blockquote></body>
</html>