[ncdnhc-discuss] Latest NC draft

[Jefsey Morfin]

Dear Vint,
thank you for your response. Basically we agree on the analysis, but we do 
not speak of the same thing. You talk about technicalities which are 
transient by nature. I think gouvernance of a 10 billions people consensus.

What is of importance is not the hardware we can reasonably manage (lines, 
satellites, wi-fi, tv, radio). What is of more importance if the software 
which will keep moving a lot. But what is of the essence is the brainware: 
the way the people live with the system and some influence them.

IPlease check the words of my post and of your comment. You will understand 
the ICANN's problem.

Let me explain again: there are three types of networks in life (with 
associated concepts) :
- centralized : hardware, direction, monologue, hierarchy, organization, 
coordination.
- decentralized/meshed : software, management, dialogue, democracy, 
association, cooperation
- distributed : brainware, participation, polylogue, consensus, community, 
concertation.

Images : telephone (centralized), mobile (decentralized), walkie-talkie 
(distributed).
Authority is : delegated (centralized), shared (decentralized), retained by 
participants (distributed).
I did not pick the wording today. I explain that for 17 years.

Now: let read what I say and what you say. It plainly shows that while the 
Internet is a distributed network, you think its "net keeping" (meaning of 
'gouvernance' in French) as a centralized operation.

At 15:40 23/04/02, vint cerf wrote:
>At 01:22 PM 4/23/2002 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >Dear Harold,
> >I certainly join and support YJ's and Kathryn's concerns.
> >But I think we cannot avoid the entire conception of the ICANN to be 
> reviewed if we want it to survive.
> >
> >1. we first have to decide what is the priority: the ICANN or the 
> network (and its participants).
> >2. where the investment is. By the USG, by the various Govs and local 
> communities, by the users (probably around $ 1.000.000.000.000 in PCs, 
> software, learning).
> >
> > From this we have four areas to consider:
> >
> >1. numbers. There are several physical numbering plans. IP must be 
> coordinated with X.121, Telephone, etc... We need a concertation 
> committee associating them all. ITU/T seems appropriate to host it. No 
> one must rule: rotating chair, no need to be an ITU/T Member.
>
>this is completely wrong, Jefsey - there is NO coordination needed of the 
>numbering plans - the ENUM design allows for arbitrary association of 
>e.164 linking. X.121 is used for X.25 but IP runs OVER that as a bearing 
>substrate. I see no need beyond the current ENUM proposal for any 
>coordination of numbering plans and in the ENUM case, it is accomplished 
>by arbitrary mappings via DNS.

Neither do I see any need for coordination. But I see reasons for 
concertation. In everyone's interest.

-  for technical reasons (not a main point today, but you rose it). RFC 
1236 for one. You accept that IP and Telephone share concerns for ENUM. 
When did you first think about ENUM? When will be the next ENUM like need 
we did not think about yet? We are not thinking for 2002, but the way it 
will work for the 20 years to come.

-  the main point is that Stuart called for Govs and Govs have a solution 
to address Telecoms issues: ITU/T.  So, the question we face is simple: 
either the ITU/T takes over the IP addressing plan, as every other plan 
they help countries to manage (cooperation); or they accept that IP is 
special, and that what Lynn asked for (Govs help) needs to come through 
concertation rather than through coordination or even through cooperation.

> >2. name space management : the Internet network is one of the name 
> spaces of the TCP/IP world system that participants jointly invested in 
> (and served as a market by ISPs, ASPs, Registries). This name space 
> management is shared among ICANN (legacy), USG (gov/mil/edu/us), ccTLD 
> Alliance (ccNET),  ".eu" for the EEC space, New.net, Open Systems, Real 
> Names, AOL, MS, Verisign, ITU/T (telephone names), and all the large 
> naming/numbering system as ISSN, ISBN, etc.. We need a concertation 
> committee associating them all. No one must rule: rotating chair, no need 
> to be an ITU/T Member.
>
>again the independent naming systems are just that, independent. There is 
>no reason to associate AOL keywords with MSN keywords, etc. If anyone 
>wants to make associations, DNS is one tool that can accomplish that. The 
>AOL system for IM, for instance, uses association tables to link dynamic 
>IP to IM Identifiers, for example. It is neither necessary nor even wise 
>to try to force all of these systems together.

True. There is no reason to associate (distributed relation concept) AOL 
and MS (Real Names?) keywords. It is absolutely true that "it is not wise 
to try to *force all that systems together*" (hyper centralized relation 
concept!) .

But there are 550.000.000 people (9.000.000.000 in he future) out there and 
189 Govs that Lynn called in. Who are quite confused because they do not 
understand why they do not reach the site they typed for; why there is no 
semantical unity; why they have different responses in using IE or 
Netcaspe, with browser and their e-mail; logics from right to left and from 
let to right; international Domain names they have do not how to use and 
protect; major rate difference, so complex names; why do they have to use a 
20 years old concept based US located machine to connect their local 
people, why they would have to wait for US gurus to decide about their 
local network naming plan, why would they have to pay a foreign corporation 
to get their name back on their own computer, etc...

For years until 1986 (ARPA was represented at Thugs 85) we had bi-annual 
meetings among registries (public and private), discussed that kind of 
details together and addressed them simply. The number of users was lower, 
matters were different, but complexity was equivalent. We never had a 
problem because "they" decided, not us. I asked once C&W why we were of 
interest to them (monopolies were really bigger than our small team). They 
responded : "your are the catalyst". This is what the USG expected from 
ICANN asking it to foster competition: to catalyze it. Two proper lines in 
ICP-1.

People are gown boys. They do not need to be directed by the ICANN. They 
have a market and customers. The only thing no one wants are collisions (we 
need a serious solution to TLD squatting : concertation among serious 
projects is the only solution). The next thing no one wants is confusion, 
ie different usage rules for equivalent entries in different systems. 
Concertation  again the solution. Ukases or creeds are not.

Lynn, not me, called on the Govs. The ITU/T is their response. I think for 
a long it is the only solution, because of the way the world is. Also 
because I used it at a time they were more formal than today. I know it is 
a dangerous response, and that we do not want the Internet to become only a 
major service by Telcos.

But, Lynn asked for an international response. Not me. Govs are national. 
ITU/T is international. The Internet is multinational by nature.

If the ITU/T comes in and uses its common rules, everyone being a member: 
the Internet will be partly dismantled. We all know it and fear it for 
years. It will become in part a French Internet connected to an US 
Internet, etc.  We have to make sure that what Lynn called for is only used 
for what is needed, no more.

The only solution is a concertation of the Name Spaces, because the ITU/T 
happens to be a Name Space (telephone numbers used as names). Because EEC 
is a Name Space with ".eu". Because the USG Is a Name Space with 
gov/mil/edu/us. So they will protect us, and we will relate with them on a 
peer to peer basis. This will be carved in the stone if the Name Space 
cooperation is chaired on a rotational basis and if the Members are not 
bound to be ITU/T Members.

> >3. Protocol issues. This has not yet taken off. But it may be the 
> leading issue in a near future when the system architecture will start 
> being questioned. The same solution should be expected.
>
>what's the point here?

Lynn, not me called on Govs. Govs, not me, have shown they are not 
interested. Govs, not me, indicated that ITU/T is their normal way to 
respond to call like the Lynn's one.  But, as soon as we have started being 
under the ITU/T umbrella the whole thing will be under that umbrella.

It will come with the requested funding.
I think we did not need it, but Lynn said we needed it.

For years I have called Mikes and Lynns attitude towards Govs  "King of 
Ireland"s policy" the one who called the Brits in against another Irish 
King. Now we face it: Brits are considering landing. Up to us to try to 
make the best of it and to reorganize with them.

Do you really think that IETF is going to block for long national interest 
concerns? All the more if the Internet has been understood or desired by 
many as a Telcos major service?  How much money do the IETF and ISOC 
contribute? Soon there will be voices for IPv6 to become an ITU/T standard. 
We all know it. We all have heard them already.

Our only way out is to make clear, from the very beginning that Internet 
services are extended services, sharing with applications and contents. 
That Internet systems architecture share with OS. So they are out of the 
strict scope of a Govs supported Telecommunication union.

Or the development will become exclusively MS and GNU. Today we do not 
debate details and technicalities. We only talk about the kind of 
organization to host or to lead the debates to come. We know that many 
issues might be misunderstandings. What we want is that the organization we 
set up does not prevent us to address that misunderstandings properly.

> >4. Mission creep. The ICANN has shown that the gouvernance involves 
> many, many things. Some are of ICANN's concern only, some are general to 
> all the name spaces. Some are general interest. What we need is an 
> Internet Campus where they may meet, debate, cross-fertilize etc... 
> Independently. This can be ITU/T sponsored in Geneva, UN sponsored in New 
> York, ICANN sponsored in MdR. Disney sponsored in France, Marriott 
> sponsored in Hawaii  The only thing we know is that it will never be 
> ICANN or USG controlled or directed.
> >
> >Internet is like the sea. Who knows where are the roots or the springs 
> of the seas; who is the master of the oceans? All those who said "I know" 
> or "its me" only shown themselves as pompous fools. No need fro the NC to 
> be considered that way.
>
>Internet maybe as ubiquitous as the sea but it still takes a considerable 
>degree of work to keep it operational - please don't add to the problem by 
>mixing too many pollutants into it.

Dear Vint, Lynn called 189 Govs in, not me. ICANN developed mission creep, 
not me.

1) What I know is that you talk about a "considerable degree of work to 
keep it operational" and I say that most of this work is blocking the nets.

I asked around "what if the ICANN disappeared". You did not respond 
personally, but a few did (and I would be interested in your response off 
the records). Respondents were from very different sides, one at least with 
full authority in term of ICANN competence. All the responses were roughly 
the same: "nothing, may be one or two IP registries more. No more TLD". I 
ask around for a long what the ICANN did for the nets: I know it is a poor 
question. I know you spend a lot of time on it. But is the time you spend 
with the ICANN (except for the weight it gives you on other issues) your 
best contribution to the nets?

2) You say they are pollutants, I name them Internet Participants. What I 
know is there are here. They will not fade away. They will keep coming with 
each tide. All the more if power is here (Lynn called for Govs, not me).

You have two solutions. Either you keep selecting some, and you will never 
know where your territory ends. Or you accept none and you give them a 
place to gather and a way to organize. If possible in a way which helps you.

What is the situation today? You want to contract the world and have no 
control on Verisign, not even on any Registrar. You have a BC with mostly 
Telcos and even a TLD and only a very few businesses mostly interested in 
IP protection (the President Club I called for, would really help today). 
You have an NCDHNC and a DNSO which worked hard for a ".org" position you 
disagreed with... Let us have a BC, let us have a NCDHNC developing 
independently, getting interested in many business issues and in many 
non-profit issues. And let us get authoritative inputs from them from time 
to time.

> >But the first thing we have to keep in mind is "mani pulite". There are 
> rumors and questions enough around IP and name Registries for the NC and 
> PSO to address first this either ethic or PR problem.


Dear Vint, I apologize for being tough on ICANN or looking disruptive. I 
want as much as you do that the network develops and addresses people and 
nations needs. And for that we have to get real.

I kept saying that Lynn called the Govs not me. I agree with his diagnosis. 
I disagree with what the ICANN is to do. I think the job calls for a M$1 
yearly maximum budget (I reviewed in detail and doubled Harald's [IETF 
Chair] proposed budget: from experience, there a few things Harald misses). 
And I think that at the end of the day, this is what the ITU/T will consider.

But we are three. The Govs, the ITU/T and us. So we have to accept the 
others two concerns.
- we have to propose a Gov acceptable solution. We have to not to talk 
about our small or big rocks on the sea bottom. We have to give a route to 
ship commanders. A route they will accept at a G9 meeting and that press 
and people will live with.
- we have to convince ITU/T that the Internet Community may be trusted to 
address its internal problems. Or they will never concert with us: they 
will only report Govs that they can take over the coordination we do not 
want. We have to show them that Verisign will not enforce WLS nor Whois sales.

ITU/T is OK. They did a good job. They have no problem. They are ready to 
help. But they are not our world. Why would they take the risk we unbalance 
them? As you say we are layers over their concerns. And we are growing. Do 
they really want us? Do they really are able to address a value 
added/extended distributed network system and its population?

Either we organize our own TCP/IP world in a proper way before we relate 
with the ITU/T. Or we accept the ITU/T to join our own world and help our 
concertation. Or the ITU/T and Govs will address our needs in their own 
way, probably without the ICANN. Lynn started a momentum. We still can 
drive it in the proper direction, but we cannot stop it.

jfc