<html>
<body>
Dear Jay,<br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>I understand what you intended to do and why. This
was impolite, but no offense has been taken. I have no problem in
repeating you that I am one of the IG co-founder of telepresse.com, and I
suggest you better read our 16 years old site. I regret the lame response
of Greg “I did not insult you: this was the quote I chose”. I am
impatient to see the result of George’s promise of handling an MS process
as a kindergarten on behalf of free speach.<br>
<br>
I know you know I have trapped you in clarifying the whole NTIA removal
process. It could have been anyone not knowing me. I did it for the very
reason you gave: "without the serious disruption of the [ICANN’s
aficionados] most of us would have much more time to consider the other
thoughts offered and there would considerable free bandwidth for new
people to fill."<br><br>
Let us try to consider these things neutrally and seriously.<br><br>
1. the USG (through FCC and NTIA) has supervised the whole international
network deployment process for 37 years.<br>
2. the NTIA has announced its removal from this supervision in very
ambiguous terms. <br>
3. in asking ICANN to organize a transition toward a new governance where
leadership will not be exercised the way the world chose in Dubai. This
is, therefore, a delicate task that should ascertain whether ICANN
succeeds in convincing the world and, therefore, the NTIA.<br><br>
One can easily imagine that the NTIA's successor will face a complex
political context and must be designed to manage it. The test that the
NTIA has foreseen is to see if ICANN, before contemplating managing a
transition, and possibly assuming a succession, is able to facilitate the
MS process that will devise its proposition to the world.<br><br>
You have shown that it has for the time being definitely failed that
test. Why?<br><br>
ICANN has chosen to prepare this process in using this mailing list. This
mailing list is, therefore, part of an MS management process as perceived
and facilitated by ICANN. We are cooperating stakeholders. There are on
the list a large number of ICANN supporters. Some others are not, but
accept or watch ICANN. I am neither because I think that the mere concept
of ICANN is a BUG (in being designed to Be Unilaterally Global). Up to
now, that BUG was patched by the NTIA supervision (1) which artificially
centralized a distributed network (2) making ICANN once deprived from the
NTIA functionally unable to sustain my stakes of VGN Master. This
additionally comes at a time (perhaps the reason why the NTIA disengages)
when the network of networks will suffer from its ongoing transformation
into the networks (VGNs) of the networks (technologies) of networks
(bandwidth), documented by the I*Stakeholders OpenStand RFC
6852.<br><br>
So, I patiently tried to explain, because I am one the concerned
stakeholders who will suffer from the resulting IG deficit:<br><br>
1. That the internet that this list discusses is a 1978 project the first
part of which went well, and the second part is not completed but it can
be achieved outside of the IETF (since it must interface multiple
technologies outside of the IETF scope and mission [RFC 3935])<br>
2. that this multitechnology second part is outdated by the RFC 6852
economic standardization paradigm and has to be reviewed before being
able match the current evolutions.<br>
3. how this should be explored in cooperation, along the ICANN policy and
toward its described possibilities or others.<br><br>
The response you bring, supported by an ICANN Board Member, "I call
for/we need a procedure to impeach such behavior" (this is my
reading) only shows that:<br><br>
1. you and ICANN have not understood what an MS mechanism of discussion
and decision is and want to prevent stakeholder from defending their
interests.<br>
2. you and ICANN are not able to consider an evolution of its 1998
digital context, which may raise suspicions regarding 2015 and further
on.<br>
3. ICANN has chosen to manage its first enhanced MS case I a way that
would be disrupted by the decent contributions of a non-obedient
stakeholder. If the ICANN MS process system is not able to manage me, how
will they deal with China, Russia, or North Korea? <br><br>
You will note that you did not have much time to wait: the yesterday
European evaluation is a direct response to your mail. Now, understand
that I am more vocal than my fellow internet informed individual users
because I have sort of overseen this question, in development (until
1986) and further on in adversity, for decades. What is happening right
now is just the result of the seeds of the late 1970s decade and I think
that the NTIA and you have closed that chapter. I hoped ICANN and a
completed OpenStand could make the US VGN cooperate with the emergence of
billions of VGNs. This will happen, but not with this ICANN.<br><br>
I am afraid that George Sadowsky's response and the lack of a
contribution of Steve Crocker and Vint Cerf mean that the ICANN framework
is obsolete. I do not know what the NTIA will decide: I think most of the
rest of the world and I will stay friendly because there is no reason to
shoot at the ambulance<b> </b>and most have already turned the page. I
was probably the last one to actively preach for a feasible technical,
political and societal realistic continuity. You turned me wrong: a
change is necessary. OpenStand has started it. You have settled it. Thank
you. What is coming will be to the IG what the IG is to the ITU.<br>
<br><br>
As individual, local, national VGN Masters, the time has come to
definitely dedicate our effort toward a "fail-secure plan" for
our networks. If ICANN wants to talk with us, they can discuss it with
Europe first. We elected them and we pay taxes for that, they start doing
a good job, TTIP is coming, and the US Telecom Act is to be seriously
adjusted to the world’s demand and the net neutrality.<br><br>
We cannot hope to trust ICANN to keep the internet lead anymore. It is
too difficult for their formula.<br><br>
Sorry and Thanks.<br><br>
jfc, <br><br>
At 22:09 16/04/2014, Jay Daley wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi Barry<br><br>
On 17/04/2014, at 6:56 am, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
wrote:<br><br>
> I find some of the so-called "troll" posts interesting and
a sincere<br>
> attempt to present a sometimes very different view of these
issues.<br>
> <br>
> I was confused when I saw the initial troll complaint and had to
pay<br>
> close attention to figure out who or what was being
referenced.<br><br>
I was reasonably clear to couch my email as a question to see who else
felt that way and it is clear that not everyone does.<br><br>
> <br>
> I would really like some explanation of how these posts were
hostile<br>
> or purposely counter-productive rather than just, for some,
different.<br><br>
I did not suggest that they were either hostile or purposely
counter-productive.<br><br>
> Lacking that my gut tells me this is mostly a "get with the
program or<br>
> get out" sort of complaint.<br><br>
Quite the opposite. Two reasons for that - the first is the
most obvious, that the position on structural separation I have been
taking is quite clearly "not with the program" and the second
is that without the serious disruption of the troll most of us would have
much more time to consider the other thoughts offered and there would
considerable free bandwidth for new people to fill.<br><br>
> Admittedly the volume on these lists is a little high, and my
post<br>
> isn't improving that, but other than that I can't imagine why
just<br>
> ignoring one poster, if that's your desire, doesn't
suffice.<br><br>
That's certainly the strategy I have pursued but not everyone follows
that and so otherwise useful threads descend into nonsense and valuable
interactions are spoiled. <br><br>
One question - would you feel any different about this if someone,
hypothetically of course, were posting to a list using multiple
identities in order to create a conversation where none existed
otherwise?<br><br>
Jay<br><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -- <br>
> -Barry Shein<br>
> <br>
> The
World
|
bzs@TheWorld.com
|
<a href="http://www.theworld.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.TheWorld.com</a><br>
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice:
800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR,
Canada<br>
> Software Tool & Die | Public Access
Internet | SINCE 1989
*oo*<br><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Jay Daley<br>
Chief Executive<br>
.nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited)<br>
desk: +64 4 931 6977<br>
mobile: +64 21 678840<br>
linkedin:
<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley" eudora="autourl">
www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley</a><br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ianatransition mailing list<br>
ianatransition@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>