[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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