Dear David,

Thank you for your response. From what I gather, our (you and me) exchange was a determining point, as – in addition – we both demand technical accuracy: this implies that our exchange was not biased. (John Curan has added a key calendary point I will address later on).

All of us now know where we stand . I will cover it in five points that I will use for a page on the http://brasummit.org wiki.

- the wholization vs. internationalization
- the background
- irt. conceptuality
- irt. technicality
- conclusion

I will then intersperse comments in your input.


1. Wholization vs. internationalization

Until know (let us say, for common reference, until e-Snowden), the industry's strategy was "internationalization" (cf. Unicode explanation). This means to internationalize the US standards to colonize foreign industries. This is now switching to "wholization", which is our problem and is well introduced in ( http://www.research-degree-thesis.com/showinfo-154-1288914-0.html):

"Since the fast development of the wholization of globe financial market and electronic trade and communication technology, the market environments that global exchanges are facing have greatly changed. More and more exchanges switch from a governance structure based on traditional members cooperatives to for-profit companies to suit sharp competitive market conditions".
This boils down to the leading business stakeholders' hijacking of the world's digital synergy, i.e. the difference between the whole and global:
"whole = whole sum of the stakeholders’ outputs + synergy among all the stakeholders".
The added value  produced by people is sold to them: "if it’s free, you are the product". Why share in an enhanced cooperation when one can sell it?

This change (on which the ICANN business plan is based) is accepted as a fact by the members of the technical coalition initiative that is to adapt:
- the multi-stakeholder control from multilateral (governments and governmental specialized cooperations influenced by the USG)
- to a business coalition based upon technical necessities and the demands of "global communities" such as media, e-commerce, cyber-military procurement, social engineering, languages, sex, etc.

This adaptation has known different steps:
- RFC 6852 agreement to organize cooperation into coopetition (the term coalition is now used) on the technical (standards) and commercial (FRAND) areas.
- the e-Snowden saga that frees the cyber-military/security procurement business.
- the Montevideo declaration to politically establish the US stakeholders group (i.e. originating from the statUS-quo) as the founders, ensuring continuity.
- the Dilma Rousseff romance to obtain political support for the ICANN/IANA "globalization" and try to squeeze the various possible competing initiatives.

In order to have a chance of success that "Technical Coalition" strategy has to be inclusive both technically and conceptually. Your responses show that it is not.


2. Background

The WSIS:
- assigned us an esthetic: i.e. a "people centered, à caractére humain, centrada en la persona" Information Society.
- started its ethitechnic practice in calling for a multi-stakeholder cooperation process advised by dynamic coalitions gathering in the IGF.

There is a growing consensus of the world digisphere that the whole digital ecosystem governance is to be improved. There are three cultures involved:

1.1. yours: I understand as determined by Jon Postel's first (net centric) sentence of RFC 820 (1983): "The ARPANET community is making the transition from the ARPANET to the ARPA Internet." You managed its center of reference as an excellent IANA Director for years.

1.2. mine: I inherited it from Norman Hardy and Robert Tréhin. It is based upon the deployment of the (world centric) International Network (I note this as IntNet to differentiate it) by PTTs and some large and small private operators, competitively using the Tymnet architecture rather than the BBN one. I created the non-profit Intlnet (in 1978) in order to support its free open center of reference (INTLFILE) and its local relational space abstracts.
 
1.3. Civil Society: their concerns are Human Digital Rights, i.e. without denying the existence of various forms of Digital Rights, to make sure that these Human Digital Rights will not conflict with Human Rights. This is summarized in the precautionary principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle) that is statutory in the EU and constitutional in France. Not respecting it would, therefore, balkanize the internet.


3. irt. conceptuallity

The alternative boils down to: "either the internet model should beimposed on the world, or the internet model should adapt to the world?" You clearly show you favor the former choice  in:

1. considering the Internet as the ultimate reference. I talked and underlined that I talked about human digital names and numbers and of the labels of the root names. You understood DNS. For you the internet root is the unique reference point of the universe instead of being one of the 65,635 windows for the universe on the Internet DNS (RFC 1035).

2. I talked of the INTLFILE as the open repository of the roots of the human digital names and numbers. You doubted it because the authors of its IANA abstract did not acknowledge the names of those who selected the labels they used.

3. You did not care about the other architectonical needs that they might have the Internet root file does not address (in spite of the RFC 1236 example).


4. irt. technicallity

I proposed you(and documented why the ICANN/IANA globalization called for Civil Society to be a leading stakeholder in the technical solution) to work on that solution. This is because "code is law" and the IANA is the core of the code. Anything the stakeholders may discuss, anytime, anywhere will necessarily depend on the technical reference center of the technology they are discussing, because "code is law".

You and I have certainly the deepest experience in the matter, hence the strongest obligation to participate in this effort and to see this discussion located at the best place in the Technical and Political agora. In spite of my indication that experience on the IETF and IUCG both sides was currently leading to a possible convergence, subject to the interest of ISOC, you are not interested.

I can only read your response as a technico-cultural disinterest in an evolution of the IANA because you consider the effort useless, or out of the common agenda. And even perhaps as an opposition because you deliberately increase the chances that mistakes are made in conceiving that evolution if we miss your experience.


5. Conclusion

The only conclusion I can draft from this is that ICANN/IANA technical globalization is not on the agenda of the Technical Coalition culture. The matter is only the governance and not the cyberspace, the architecture of which affects the governance, security among the whole digital ecosystem, and mutual trust within the digisphere.

We, therefore, have documented and illustrated together, at its very core, the reality of the power-grab attempts of the Technical Coalition members that is discussed, on the Internet infra and meta structures (hardware and protocols). What is interesting is that this is really a technical power-grab and not a money-grab, which raises several questions on the different agendas.

jfc


PS. the respective nature of the INTLFILE and of the IANA, their affiliation, and their histories through RFCs are of interest to understand the architectural limitations, the possible architectonical evolutions of the Internet, and their impact on the Human Digital Rights (and possibly on Digital Human Rights, i.e. extensions to the HR due to the societal extensions, or to incidental constrains). This calls for a critical technical investigation to be conducted with the utmost accuracy (as technical concerns may have changed over decades). It will be a part of the architectonical work in which I am engaged ( http://iucg.org/wiki/INTLFILE/IANA).


At 04:37 24/10/2013, David Conrad wrote:
Typically, if one wishes to be intellectually honest, one acknowledges the contributions of others. Given your claim to being among those that designed a core portion of the DNS, I'm surprised that the folks now credited with its creation (some of which I know, or knew well) didn't acknowledge your and your colleagues efforts or even reference them in any way.

The Internet team relation with the external world was through BBN and Tymshare (as per what I found in RFCs). Tymnet and Telenet, which were the operational networks,are not quoted. In Telenet's case, this seems understandable, as the technology was by BBN and Tymnet carried all the US international operations (through IRCs). Our responsibility in terms of international naming was documented by our FCC license. This made the INTLFILE a public matter. I am not shocked that no one thought about mentioning us (moreover, we never published or claimed it).


Who do you credit for "US" or "China"?
I don't understand the question.

Someone created these terms. We do not know them and acknowledge their contributions.

BTW, are you not American? Cees is Dutch, Bob and I are French, but all the others are US citizens. I accept that most were distant foreigners to you (offices in Bub Road, Cupertino), but Neil lived in Los Altos.
I am an American in the sense that I am a citizen of the USA, yes, but not sure what my (or your or your compatriots') nationality has to do with anything in this thread.

This was mentioned because it was you who talked about them as my compatriots. It was just to point out that not everything came from France :-)

(BTW, it's spelled "Bubb").

Yes!  Thank you for the accuracy. I seldom make the error nowadays. It was "bubble" road a long time ago; bubbling with new ideas that initially Bob Tréhin used to bring us back when visiting there (we were located in St-Cloud, in the western suburbs  of Paris).

I know that I am as stupid as an internet wire, and that you enjoy contradicting,
I have no opinion of your intelligence. My interest on this list (well, the igc list which seems to have been dropped from the cc's) is primarily technical accuracy, not necessarily contradicting. When someone asserts "This why they designed the DNS to support 35,635 roots." I feel a need to comment.

RFC 1035, ICANN ICP/3.

As I doubt anyone actually cares about my opinion on the matter and the rest of your questions aren't related to issues of technical accuracy, I'll refrain from further comment.

As I explained above, this is sad for the all of us.

You certainly have to contribute in the way that is best for maintaining technical accuracy in a distributed globalized/wholized IANA system. Intlnet embarked into the thinking about the INTLFILE evolution as an MDRS from the end of the 1980s (Multilingual Distributed Meta-Data Registry System). Not an easy task as not so many people understand the need, the issues and where it leads to. For example, I was never able to get a working French JTC1/SC32 mirror committee in order to push for the study and the standardization of such a real-time system. Unicode refused to discuss a DDDS to operationally support their IANA langtags table (they just wanted their vision to be carved in the IANA stone).

Best,
jfc