At 19:09 18/10/2013, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Yes, Carlos, but....if the community cannot come together on agreed 
>mechanisms and institutions for global governance of the so-called 
>"phone list" (really bad metaphor, by the way) how is it able to 
>take on larger problems?
>In other words, if we can't do ICANN right, why should anyone think 
>we can do anything else?
>I have always viewed ICANN as a test case of our capabilities for 
>global governance, not as intrinsically interesting in itself.

Milton,

I see and agree with your point. This is precisely why the statUS-quo 
is much needed: it represents an "afforable" and organized emergence 
of the cyberspace intricacy for all. However, an emergence is a 
dynamic form of ballance and there are two big architectonic forces 
that oppose it:

1. when we designed it, the root was not to be managed that way. When 
Postel and Mokapetris used it to specify and design the DNS they 
known that its was an heterarchy inherited from the real world (the 
then existing data neworks and monopolies) and not a hierarchy as was 
their local initial NIC. This why they designed the DNS to support 
35,635 roots.

2. the convenient stability provided by the status-quo was only 
initially convenient. Further on it was constrain by the US 
coordination. This helped the US industry but flavored it as 
resulting from US influence, imposing an US vision of the network, 
subject to US laws. This necessarily indusced centripetal forces.

>Therefore, I do not agree with more ambitious agendas - or at least, 
>the more ambitious issues might be discussed, but only if we are 
>able to develop and apply a workable solution to the more immediate 
>and simpler problem (ICANN).

We all know there are alternative technically workable solutions, but 
nobody knows where their work would politically lead us. As I said a 
legal, political, economical, military status-quo could satisfy 
everyone, but (1) it being US coordinated is an increasing problem 
(2) we do not know how long the US centralizing umbrella is going to 
protect us from the Internet intrinsicaly distributed architecture 
and (3) if the USG reduces its centralization constraints we have no 
experience of the consquences and of the alternative centralization 
forces (copyrights, Google, regional interests).

This means two main questions:
- how long do we have to prepare a transition?
- a transition to what?

What I presently observe is that is precisely the time when IAB 
removed itself from the responsibility of an architectural guidance 
toward a better internet. As an alternative the OpenUse Montevidean 
alliance (ICANN, ISOC, IETF, IAB, W3C, RIRs) adheres to a market 
driven innovation (RFC 6852) without obsoleting RFC 3869 and 3935. 
This can only mean one thing: an USCF leadership (or who ever manages 
the US Cyber Command budget). This resumes the initial ARPA 
sponsorship. Things are more complex than in 1972 or 1983, howver the 
Snowden clarification show came just in time to lift some 
inhibitions, confirm the dual R&D with Google and unit the OECD

Now, time has come, I think, to completely reread the Internet RFCs 
from a different and more mature architectonical point of view. The 
coming months are interesting as it seems that this reread will be 
military based, with a focus on the security of the cyber operations theater.

This is why I would be interested in having an-online full copy of 
the NATO's Tallin manual.
jfc