RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Recordings of Amsterdam Meetings and PROPOSAL

["Bruce Young" <bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Read this post if you haven't(quoted below!). Once again, Jefsey is making
lots of sense.

Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!


| -----Original Message-----
| From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:jefsey@club-internet.fr]
| Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 2:26 PM
| To: Esther Dyson
| Cc: Alexander Svensson; Atlarge Discuss List
| Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Recordings of Amsterdam
| Meetings and
| PROPOSAL
|
|
| Dear Esther,
| First, have a merry Xmas and let enjoy together the few days
| left of peace
| on earth, before the White House probably initiates the XXIth
| Post America
| Century.
|
| At 10:13 23/12/02, Esther Dyson wrote:
| >SOrry, but  I think this misses the point.
|
| I think you are fully right if the point is your point.
| Esther, I joined
| the International network governance in 1977. Since then I
| have seen three
| datanetwork technologies ruling the world, involving Govs,
| needing legal
| actions, international agreements, large groups involvement. You are
| currently involved in the third one. What is at stake is the
| forth one and
| I doubt it is "Internet II" under TCP/IP.
|
| Tymnet created most of the today considered concepts (name
| space, Intl
| registries, virtual circuit, virtual switch, open and closed virtual
| networks, "OPES" (slots), extended services, security,
| etc...etc...) as
| being a user and a host relations oriented network systems,
| and a de facto
| standard and a "market monopoly". OSI came as an inter
| operator system
| which supported international liaisons and the development of
| a datacoms
| industry. Then came the Internet "mess" supporting the Web
| and permitting
| the incredible development we know today.
|
| The three technologies started developing in parallel by the
| end of the
| 1960s. Arpa, Tymshare, Inria. No other one has developed, while today
| powerful demands actually call for a new technology : users,
| industrial
| market, White House, etc. So it is unlikely that a fourth
| technology can be
| proposed as a totally new one. My reading is that it will be
| a mix of them
| three. Tymnet was centralized technology and distributed
| governance, OSI
| was peer to peer technology and governance, Internet is distributed
| technology and centralized governance. Tymnet was smart end to end
| technology, OSI was standardized open one and TCP/IP is a
| multi-interconnect technology.
|
| What the world wants is probably a open smart multi-interconnect
| technology, permitting a distributed network with a
| distributed governance.
| That technology does not exist... yet. But it is actually ready as a
| development capacity.
|
| There is two possibilities : either the switch is a fight
| (national and
| manufacturer competition) or the switch is progressive,
| cooperative and
| tested in common.
|
| I had to manage the switch from Tymnet to OSI. It was
| progressive and it
| took roughly three years. This was to change from Tymnet
| protocol to X.75
| and from the name space to X.121. We used X.121 under Tymnet
| protocol and
| Tymnet was by very far the leader in X.25 and X.75 support, so it was
| smooth. Transfer was completed by end of 1986. Who does recall Tymnet
| protocol today? (They will have to rediscover it !)
|
| We all saw the quick market take over by TCP/IP in the late
| 90s. It was not
| coordinated but came under the pressure of the market. Who
| still use X.25
| and X.75 today? (hmmm, may be a lot of people who do not have so many
| security problems :-)
|
| The coming technology is going to be under the pressure of
| the White House,
| of some manufacturers (M$, Sun? maybe one of the Dinosaur
| from Cometa?
| European's culture too). As a top down decision there will be
| opposition,
| political and technical. Probably societal too due to the
| impact on users
| (brainware). Look at the manufacturer and ISP reactions to
| Richard Clarke
| this week.
|
| International transition from Tymnet to OSI was three to four years.
| Transition from OSI to Internet the same. I think we have
| initiated the
| transition from Internet to the next "net fashion". And that
| technical
| development may be really fast.This will be tough.
|
| Another way is the one I propose, which can smooth things.
| Testing together
| and cross polenizing the development efforts.
|
| >ICANN is not "the board" or even the staff.
|
| True. I never talked about the Board (you remember how Jon
| Postel and Joe
| Sims explained they (s)elected them :-). I talked about the
| staff as the
| tool of an idea, of a strategy: the one you describe.
| I talked about us setting up a team as the tool of another
| idea, of another
| strategy: the correct one.
|
| You are American so you do not see it so plainly as it is
| your culture.
| Seen from outside this is simple and  very clear: ICANN's job is to
| internationally embody the US law. The complex unnecessary
| contracting
| policy deployed by Joe Sims, Mike Roberts and you, is just a
| peaceful way
| to make respected the US Internet doctrine (47 USC 230
| (f)(1)) that the US
| Congress, culture, economy, technology and Internet Agency
| (ICANN) must
| govern the Internet. I suppose you do not even realize it.
| And I have
| nothing to object to that doctrine as such.
|
| But I have to defend another one which says that stability, security,
| innovation cannot be insured by a single authority: the NY
| Harbor Authority
| does not rule the seas. We need a concerted governance for an
| internationally structured stability, security, and
| innovation.support.
|
| >ICANN is all the Internet participants (registries, registrars, root
| >servers) who have contracts with ICANN, overseen by the
| board.  At least
| >in principle and mostly in practice, they have to agree to
| >its  policies.  If you want to have influence, you have to
| *part* of that
| >structure....and have a contract or at least an MOU with ICANN too.
|
| Fully true. But this concerns your American Internet. Not the
| currently
| reshaping/developing one. Basically what I say is that ICANN
| is managing
| the Legacy. New.net, Govnet, China, Europe, etc are not
| splits from the
| legacy Internet. They are new systems among which the legacy
| Internet is
| only one among others.
|
| ICANN should adapt to that situation and tries it (ERC).
|
| I am not sure ERC is that good for ICANN because it makes is
| more and more
| the AmerICANN. But what I know is that for @large - if they
| are people
| interested in a serious e-network to support the world sustainable
| development and ready to cooperate to develop it - ICANN is
| not the center
| of the network world anymore. @large are.
|
| They are because they are the reason why we need the network
| (the users)
| and because they know more than any others user what this
| network should be.
|
| ICANN is of no real interest in all that (it represents the
| legacy DNRRR
| which is not likely to stand very long in front of the IDNs
| the way IETF
| has specified them :-). @large are small, but they will stay
| by nature.
| ICANN will not stay by itself.
|
| What I say is that ICANN must be made understood that it is
| to ally with us
| in its best interest. But in order to do that we must exist.
| If we existed
| as a part of ICANN, it would mean that ICANN leaves outside
| of the real
| world and that e-networks will be ITU-I governed. We need to
| exist outside
| of ICANN, to represent something more real than a few
| activists disputing
| Esther. We need to be a technical, societal, political proposition, a
| proposition other will think as most probably being the
| fourth generation one.
|
| For that we need a few bucks, a few motivated peoples and
| most of all a
| good translation of our user's dreams into a network architecture
| proposition. This means real work. Tymnet was the proposition
| of a small
| team lead by LaRoy Times, OSI was the proposition of
| corporations and state
| monopolies gathered at CCITT VII (ITU-T), TCP/IP is the
| proposition of the
| IETF galaxy of people. I feel that the new one may be one by
| a small team,
| under Gov support advised by ITU, gathering people selected
| from the IET
| galaxy. Or it will be by SAIC, Cisco, M$: my only fear in
| such a case is
| that it would not be market but business driven.
|
| Frankly as a venture capitalist, as an activist, as an
| involved person, I
| think there is a huge opportunity for you to do something big there.
| EDventures ruling the world. The budget is quite low and the
| return may be
| large. If you want to be on the dot-root Steering Committee
| you welcome.
|
| To get real does not mean for me to acknowledge ICANN sovereignty
| it is for ICANN to acknowledge we all are engaged in
| servicing the users.
|
| Cheers. jfc
|
|
|
|
| >At 07:23 AM 12/20/2002, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:
| >>On 12:16 20/12/02, Alexander Svensson said:
| >>>How much influence has IcannatLarge.org had until now? How
| >>>has it achieved its (somewhat sloppily defined) goals?
| >>>Is it the best way to influence domain name etc. policy
| >>>development from a user perspective? Is a regional approach
| >>>likely to be easier or more difficult to organize (think
| >>>language, think communication, think time zones)? How
| >>>do you get existing user groups to participate?
| >>>
| >>>These are the questions we have to discuss *before* we have
| >>>the answer to the second question -- what IcannatLarge.org
| >>>should do with regard to regional At Large organizing
| >>
| >>Dear Alex,
| >>I like it when the list become quiter and a serious dialog
| can develop.
| >>Your point are the good point. I would comment your dialog
| with Richard
| >>as follows.
| >>- we want a male plug into ICANN of our own shape to get some real
| >>Internet power, but we have not decided it yet.
| >>- ICANN has set-up a female plug and we are not happy with
| the design and
| >>the way it relates to quite no Internet power supply.
| >>
| >>My understanding is that ICANN has no real Internet power
| and that if we
| >>organize we may have more. The cost and the effort is not
| nil but it is
| >>very low when we consider what is at stake. I do think that
| if instead of
| >>debating a few of us REALLY meant to take over the control of their
| >>Internet, it would not be that difficult.
| >>
| >>- ICANN is probably 10 full time people
| >>- USG is big but Nancy Victory is not 24/24 dedicated to
| Internet and her
| >>whole staff is probably mudded in bureaucracy a private
| commando would
| >>not have.
| >>- the cost is probably no more than a few hours a week, 10
| to 30 PCs (we
| >>are talking of $1500/month equivalent)
| >>- the vision of the system they have has no architecture,
| no plan, no
| >>mutual agreement etc/ to work on such things would give a
| tremendous lead.
| >>
| >>The real power is the number of users. You want an exemple?
| Take New.net.
| >>What ICANN reproaches to New.net is to be commercial,
| closed and final,
| >>ie an alternative. Take dot-root: a test as per ICP-3,
| non-profit, non
| >>final (if a project is a mistake it has a back-off built-in
| possibility),
| >>open to all and calling for public reporting. I do think
| that we can
| >>develop dot-root to test, advise, work together on an ICANN
| III we all
| >>may agree and that might wear the name of ITU-ICANN.
| >>
| >>I do think we can do it. We only need to agree and
| cooperate. Today we
| >>are disbanded and with no real common practical objective. Let stop
| >>debating as parrots and let unite those who want as a team,
| with a clear
| >>and final aim "to set-up a users' real international and innovative
| >>network system".
| >>
| >>jfc
|
|


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de