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