[At-Large] [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance
Christian de Larrinaga
cdel at firsthand.net
Mon Jan 13 11:02:36 UTC 2014
sigh. Let me ask myself.
How much do I depend on IANA and ICANN to use the Internet?
I don't need them for IP addresses because IPv4 is out of their control
now, and I can only get IPv4.
I don't need them for domain names because those are resolved via the
root servers and already assigned in those servers. The regulatory
framework for domains are in reality run by the domicile jurisdiction of
the operator of that registry with dotted lines to domicile of where I
am located. ICANN recommendations and agreements may or may not be
I don't need them for port and other addressing as I am effectively
limited to port 80 due to all the firewalls and fragmentation in the
I don't need them to determine whether I can get an IP or a domain or
not. The IP address I get is determined by my ISP even if it goes
against RIPE or IANA policy. It generally is.
I can't register my own domain at ICANN because it costs $1million and I
want to spend $100. I can run my own DNS and provide tunnels to use my
view of my own domains... for free.
So why do I need IANA or ICANN to use the Internet?
I am not saying they did not have a role when having Internet
connectivity meant you shared a common resolution of all network
resources and I got my IPs as a user directly. But when was that last
Most of the stuff I do want to work on don't involve ICANN or IANA at
all but impact issues such as surveillance, privacy, data sharing,
application ownership, pervasive logging (meta data), advertising
databases, jurisdictional assignments, port blocking, traffic filtering
and so on.
So why are so many people spending so much money and time on ICANN?
If ICANN could establish
- a direct IP allocation service to me the user and guarantee routability.
- a direct domain registration service to me as a user (yes I am talking
so called top level naming here)
- require networks to keep Ports open. i.e., no CGN.:-)
- ..... and so on.
Well that might be different.
William Drake wrote:
> If you’re going to cross-post things said on one list to another with a different audience and discussion going on, it would be better form to not cherry pick what you're quoting. For context, the comment below was in reply to Fadi’s statement in the interview,
>> "The world is seeking and growing ever more anxious to see an independent,
>> globally-accountable ICANN where no one government, no one organization, no
>> one individual has oversight or rights higher than the others,” Chehade
>> says. “I believe this is fundamental to the spirit of the Internet as well.
>> Equal footing for all stakeholders engaged in the management and governance
>> of this global resource.”
> On might have thought that statements like this and related moves, along with the Montevideo declaration language on globalization, would lead certain CS people to pause and reconsider a little the narrative they're spinning about the supposed strategies of imperialist forces and the false consciousness and culpability of civil society collaborationists who would like an actual multistakeholder platform to work. After all, the direction being pushed in addresses their central long-standing complaint, and the resistance to it now comes from other directions where folks are not convinced of the need or comfortable with the possible pace—another MS dialogue that needs to happen. Nevertheless, some CS folks refuse to take yes for an answer when there’s other agendas in play, so singing the same old song they’ve been stuck on since 2003 is preferred. I guess there’s a whole structure of incentives that remains powerful. This is frustrating and may help to preclude the very outcome they claim to favor, but who’s got the bandwidth to spend all day every day responding to this stuff. It’d be easier to convince creationists to consider the evidence for evolution. I’m reluctantly coming to the conclusion that nothing can be done about it so the reality-based community just needs to go forward regardless and live with the catcalls etc.
> As for the rest below, um, er, ok, thanks.
> On Jan 12, 2014, at 8:22 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>> Thank you for your today two todays sighs of concerns because they cover all our difficulties:
>>> At 12:50 12/01/2014, William Drake wrote:
>>> And yet we have numerous loud voices saying on the 1Net, governance, Best Bits, etc. mailing lists that 1Net and the Sao Paulo meeting are controlled by ICANN and other dark forces committed to preserving the status quo and US domination and so global civil society must rally to resist these oppressors etc etc
>> In our wanting to be a people centered information society (Geneva declaration), what counts is the result for the people, i.e. the way the hardware and software support brainware, i.e. an adequate law due to an adequate code.
>> Let us consider the sense of the words we are confronted with:
>> 1. An equal footing for all stakeholders engaged in the management and governance of any, global or not, resource of other people is an unacceptable intrusive tyrannical interference with their rights, dignity, privacy, intimacy (that is condemned by the Geneva declaration IRT to States) - unless each of these persons has freely demanded it for themselves.
>> 2. Yet Charade’s claim sounds perfectly right.
>> We are, therefore, in a double constraint situation.
>> Where is the bug? It is in the wrong claim that ICANN would be a unique global resource.
>> The reality is that:
>> - the digital namespace is unlimited and the IETF to some minor technical extent and ICANN for political reasons have made it a scarcity.
>> - the same limitation spirit, which was advisable for a proof of concept, has continued to prevail, polluting the Internet technological development and bogging down innovation in its initial uniform governance and opposing innovation.
>> The lack of innovation oriented technical governance has resulted in the observed lack of architectural evolution that the users of the world need. Snowden is not actually reporting NSA misbehavior; he is reporting the obsolescence of the 1983 internet when compared with the 2014 world which permitted it. ICANN as a unique global necessary resource has become a technically outdated bug that has to be corrected. This is not the sole architectonical update to consider, and so it should be carried out in a concerted manner, i.e.:
>> 1. each multistakeholder, i.e. each person, entity, organization, government, etc. having to subsidiarily decide how to correct his/her/its "ICANN global unicity bug", must be informed of his/her/its existing and individually or cooperatively devisable options, and decide by his/her/its own on their merits and mutual best advantages.
>> 2. the same validation and possible enhancement consistency process should be carried out and permanently continued in every area of the digisphere (i.e. the digital part of reality) in order to ensure the human right to a complete decent, efficient, and protected entire life.
>> This will digitally extend the multi-globally fully interoperable human + bots diversity where every person is on an equal footing with every other person.
>> NB. The US is not particularly implied in all this (except exercising entrepreneurship in that area without sufficiently imagining the consequences): it is only that the American language did not help the conceptual transition from a uniform to a diversified global space. This is embodied in the Internetting project (IEN 48) by the “loose sense” appropriately given by Vint Cerf to the word “local”. Transition was in the evolution of the sense to be innovatively applied to “local”. However, a “loose sense” is not something that developers, politicians, salespeople, and computers understand or agree upon easily. So instead to apply to trades, virtualities, other technologies, competitive alternatives, etc. “local” stayed uniquely geographically monopolistic.
>>> At 10:35 12/01/2014, William Drake wrote:
>>> Volunteering to try and help facilitate a process shouldnt require body armor.
>> I am afraid that humans being humans, it is the rule everywhere.
>> The reason why is, from experience, the inability of humans to understand each other in changing contexts, and moreover when people must understand each other over the specific improvement of the context.
>> You have those who want to carry the change, those who want to protect their status, and those who are waiting in order to see what happens. It is very frustrating for the first ones to be delayed, opposed, and passed over by the second ones who benefit from their positions, and not to be supported by the third ones who feel that they do not know enough to decide who is right.
>> I found, however, that you may avoid the weight of the body armor, enjoy the human show, and obtain what you want in trying to understand what really happens and use brainware (networked assisted cooperation) hacks. This is why I plead for software (organizational) and hardware (material) work that may help in demonstrating your point of view without having to resort to martyrdom.
>> The IETF prefers “running code” to “kings, presidents, and voting” (you could also add “christs”). One can give a pretty scientifically acceptable explanation why and a successfully experienced “how to” guide, but this will be for another day.
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
> ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large