From nobody Fri May 2 16:32:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D6AD1A6FEC for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 16:32:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BSxg1L1yAMsh for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 16:32:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A2D1A09B6 for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 16:32:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A30C1E403D; Fri, 2 May 2014 16:32:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c9a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P7Rxpk2ORV7f; Fri, 2 May 2014 16:32:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.30.0.113] (unknown [83.150.71.93]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B2761E4036; Fri, 2 May 2014 16:31:59 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: IETF Chair Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 02:32:22 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2C31EA99-3AF4-4008-8FBD-F2E919CFEB2A@ietf.org> To: "ietf-announce@ietf.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/bLpY4m-EyFLGfambGTXdBlle82A Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "ietf@ietf.org List" Subject: [Internetgovtech] NETmundial summary X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 23:32:29 -0000 The NETmundial Internet governance meeting was held last week in S=E3o = Paulo, Brazil. I wanted to provide a brief report of my view of the = meeting and its outcome. http://www.ietf.org/blog/2014/05/netmundial-summary/ Jari Arkko IETF Chair PS. Speaking of Internet governance, other than NETmundial, the hot = topic is of course IANA. If you have not yet followed what the IAB is = doing on the topic, please read this: = http://www.ietf.org/blog/2014/05/iana-changes-process/ From nobody Fri May 9 05:58:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B2E1A0296 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 05:58:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.332 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S_wdC0CLU6GB for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 05:58:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB891A0298 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 05:58:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 231.74.14.81.rev.sfr.net ([81.14.74.231]:19497 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WikNw-0003Ra-HZ; Fri, 09 May 2014 05:58:44 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 14:58:39 +0200 To: "Ianatransition@Icann.Org" From: Jefsey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_560416540==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/9gPfOVDqUUv9Lv2JcCtXyUqpFWs Cc: "comptoir@cafedu.com" , "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "discuss@1net.org List" , "iucg@ietf.org" , ga@vgnso.org Subject: [Internetgovtech] The reason why X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 12:58:51 -0000 --=====================_560416540==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "By now, most people know who Google is and what Google does. Google serves billions of online users in this country and around the world … With little or no revenue from its users, Google still manages to turn a healthy profit by selling advertisements within its products that rely in substantial part on users' personal identification information … in this model, the users are the real product. " http://www.scribd.com/doc/189329787/Google-Privacy-Policy-Ruling This explains why we do not want to be subject, through an US incorporated structure, to a Law which considers us as edge providers' products. We consider ourselves as the independent users of a common resource we co-organize through our VGNs and we pay twice: (1) as an ISP subscriber and (2) as a tax payer having to compensate for the Google's tax deductions. We demand our Governements to protect us from this legal creep, and our engineers to technically defend us from it. We therefore cannot adhere to a Sao Paulo document which reserves network neutrality for further discussions. We certainly are strangled right now, but we are too many to die. jfc morfin fsp4.net, bootstrapper --=====================_560416540==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "By now, most people know who Google is and what Google does. Google serves billions of online users in this country and around the world …  With little or no revenue from its users, Google still manages to turn a healthy profit by selling advertisements within its products that rely in substantial part on users’ personal identification information … in this model, the users are the real product. "

http://www.scribd.com/doc/189329787/Google-Privacy-Policy-Ruling

This explains why we do not want to be subject, through an US incorporated structure, to a Law which considers us as edge providers' products. We consider ourselves as the independent users of a common resource we co-organize through our VGNs and we pay twice: (1) as an ISP subscriber and (2) as a tax payer having to compensate for the Google's tax deductions.

We demand our Governements to protect us from this legal creep, and our engineers to technically defend us from it. We therefore cannot adhere to a Sao Paulo document which reserves network neutrality for further discussions. We certainly are strangled right now, but we are too many to die.

jfc morfin
fsp4.net, bootstrapper --=====================_560416540==.ALT-- From nobody Fri May 9 06:59:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 380311A02A0 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 06:59:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.141 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PnAJq4jDh91f for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 06:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A301A00BE for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 06:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [190.112.54.196]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 50B4B8A031 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 13:59:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 09:59:36 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: internetgovtech@iab.org Message-ID: <20140509135935.GC8231@mx1.yitter.info> References: <20140509125853.1AAD81A02A2@ietfa.amsl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140509125853.1AAD81A02A2@ietfa.amsl.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/UAZv5t3489Z7epiRHkP7XJuPBoc Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] The reason why X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 13:59:55 -0000 On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 02:58:39PM +0200, Jefsey wrote: > This explains why we do not want to be subject, through an US > incorporated structure, to a Law which considers us as edge > providers' products. > We demand our Governements to protect us from this legal creep So, don't use Google's stuff. Won't that solve your problem? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Fri May 9 08:56:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9C51A0059 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 08:56:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.231 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_19=0.6, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JiMEI6qn3kCG for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 08:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01CC71A001A for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 08:56:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 231.74.14.81.rev.sfr.net ([81.14.74.231]:25117 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WinA2-0006fT-DF; Fri, 09 May 2014 08:56:34 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 17:56:31 +0200 To: Andrew Sullivan ,internetgovtech@iab.org From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: <20140509135935.GC8231@mx1.yitter.info> References: <20140509125853.1AAD81A02A2@ietfa.amsl.com> <20140509135935.GC8231@mx1.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/ZUsrPxMpn2oMJFgRDQbpgZ8_5Is Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] The reason why X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 15:56:41 -0000 At 15:59 09/05/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 02:58:39PM +0200, Jefsey wrote: > > This explains why we do not want to be subject, through an US > > incorporated structure, to a Law which considers us as edge > > providers' products. > > > We demand our Governements to protect us from this legal creep > >So, don't use Google's stuff. Won't that solve your problem? No.The internet is Google and every other edge provider (including you and me)'s stuff. It is also billions of VGNs that ignore what a VGN might be. The network Nash Equilibrium is disturbed by the US law resulting from the initial 1970+ FCC decisions. The same as code is law, law induces code. IMHO, as long as the network architecture stays unfished, it is unstable and law has an uncertain impact. If law was universally US or universally French (probably the two most opposed I know in that area I know [cf. the quoted ruling and the French constitution precautionary duty which obliges us to oppose it]) there would not be any problem immediate problem. The lack of international equilibrium is due to their simulteanity. However, it is probably true to a lesser extent when cross considering many legal systems and technical approaches. IMHO, the target is to lesser their impact and help their coexistence in the least disruptive manner. The best way who probably that both acknowldeges, learn and understand the logic of the other and develops its own project with an international contingency plan. This would take into account the situation where the other takes a temporary or final lead (there could be fluctations as status-quo moves to a more dynamic strategical set). This is the way I read the NTIA and the FCC attitude, and this is the way I lead the FSP4NET approach. However, we need to take into account that the NTIA move has an immediate motivation, I consider as similar to the IEEE, ISOC, IAB, IETF, W3C one, supported by RIRs and ICANN: the I*structure has to scale for many reasons. Were we may discagree is to know (and this is another Nash Equilibrium to understand) if it is up or down. Take care. jfc From nobody Sun May 11 05:21:34 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28CB1A0319 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 05:21:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_19=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zEktE90xuiY3 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 05:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x234.google.com (mail-yk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6141A0318 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 05:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yk0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q9so4986556ykb.11 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 05:21:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9O4wnfEO9D6Y8/XwUNtFX69NlEmDpM4nvcdZO3MuIRI=; b=vLPdakDI+QlAtj7BX4zMfGuZhKoPYjM+y0YmDXQ5+tpRkB9CEMZjfzriDzdXerkDPT nvVMqIqMPbBCMsUl0lHsZKCy0q0JLI77xrRok3bho4K/UwuOpXDaBZ6uagz0BDOxKmV8 XNZMfa81waMCdr0SmKnOGr1uPz49YfeydLImiVdCPWd+WDXZa5KvJa5aBqWCFtFA/m6+ /LJH6e1RAYPAN8Pufeh1mpdf98EfgLxzOy1FTkP4GF6K5ljJkvyhzGIua+ZlkhDwoAP6 odOUr36e/GeAQ5WJQ5WioF8pVsztmOIwrCUA0uZ+6hSBoXXwUQOuIjZ1kKGDgbaVK+1q TjtQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.88.116 with SMTP id z80mr32753391yhe.112.1399810885462; Sun, 11 May 2014 05:21:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.87.135 with HTTP; Sun, 11 May 2014 05:21:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140509155643.6A1041A02C7@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20140509125853.1AAD81A02A2@ietfa.amsl.com> <20140509135935.GC8231@mx1.yitter.info> <20140509155643.6A1041A02C7@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 14:21:25 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Jefsey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/V4p4r9LyBtooa4ckCqPK1LxywQU Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, Andrew Sullivan Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] The reason why X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 12:21:32 -0000 Hi Jefsey, I am not sure of your conclusions if they are real totally or correct totally. However, I think the solution is with the communities/societies hands, if they participate more often then they will be able to solve their users' problems, or if you are able to convence all users of your ideas then they will be more involve to solve their related issues with those institutes. I recommend that you get in touch with ISOCs within your region and get acceptance first from their memebrs, then you will be able as ISOC to influence others directions. International and regional societies make big differences. You need to advertise correct-and-accepted-ideas through societies/documents not only through individual discussion lists. AB On 5/9/14, Jefsey wrote: > At 15:59 09/05/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >>On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 02:58:39PM +0200, Jefsey wrote: >> > This explains why we do not want to be subject, through an US >> > incorporated structure, to a Law which considers us as edge >> > providers' products. >> >> > We demand our Governements to protect us from this legal creep >> >>So, don't use Google's stuff. Won't that solve your problem? > > No.The internet is Google and every other edge provider (including > you and me)'s stuff. It is also billions of VGNs that ignore what a > VGN might be. The network Nash Equilibrium is disturbed by the US law > resulting from the initial 1970+ FCC decisions. The same as code is > law, law induces code. > > IMHO, as long as the network architecture stays unfished, it is > unstable and law has an uncertain impact. If law was universally US > or universally French (probably the two most opposed I know in that > area I know [cf. the quoted ruling and the French constitution > precautionary duty which obliges us to oppose it]) there would not be > any problem immediate problem. The lack of international equilibrium > is due to their simulteanity. However, it is probably true to a > lesser extent when cross considering many legal systems and technical > approaches. > > IMHO, the target is to lesser their impact and help their coexistence > in the least disruptive manner. The best way who probably that both > acknowldeges, learn and understand the logic of the other and > develops its own project with an international contingency plan. This > would take into account the situation where the other takes a > temporary or final lead (there could be fluctations as status-quo > moves to a more dynamic strategical set). > > This is the way I read the NTIA and the FCC attitude, and this is the > way I lead the FSP4NET approach. However, we need to take into > account that the NTIA move has an immediate motivation, I consider as > similar to the IEEE, ISOC, IAB, IETF, W3C one, supported by RIRs and > ICANN: the I*structure has to scale for many reasons. Were we may > discagree is to know (and this is another Nash Equilibrium to > understand) if it is up or down. > > Take care. > jfc > > _______________________________________________ > Internetgovtech mailing list > Internetgovtech@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech > From nobody Sun May 11 10:19:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FB01A001A for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 10:19:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.631 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06PkV0CA4vfE for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 10:19:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F6961A0259 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 10:19:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 231.74.14.81.rev.sfr.net ([81.14.74.231]:32393 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WjXOv-0003SN-8Q; Sun, 11 May 2014 10:19:01 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 19:18:57 +0200 To: Abdussalam Baryun From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: References: <20140509125853.1AAD81A02A2@ietfa.amsl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/7Ntg0pBlURy0ESiBu3lPmfiMGtQ Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "Ianatransition@Icann.Org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] The reason why X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 17:19:10 -0000 At 14:32 11/05/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >I recommend that your ideas get in touch with ISOCs within your region >and get acceptance first from their memebrs, then you will be able as >ISOC to influence other organisations (companies are targeting >business not charity) as google directions. Companies try best to >follow societies/regions not individuals. International and regional >societies make big differences. If societies have good relationships >then they will be better represented, but if they don't then we should >blame them not blame the organisations that are trying to make money >while the society/region is useless or unsuccessful in solving their >own finance-problems. Dear Abdussalam, I suggest you have a look at the list of the ISOC sponsors.... Actually, the way the network develops is by progressive global dissemination. It started with telex, telephone, data (catenet), protocols (internet) and now has, with some delay, returned to the june 1978 situation (one month prior IEN 48): when Tymnet announced its ACT technology. The Internet protocol support can now sort the presentation stratum (formats, languages, intellition) at the fringe to fringe layers atop of the end to end datagram transport (cf. RFC 1958) and clean the web/apps confusion. This means that ISOC and its followers/sponsors are both our allies (for a robust content transport) and fierce opponents (they wish an US technical and legal status-quo to the benefit of the large edge providers and the disadventage of the small ones we all are, in case ASAP - applications as a protocol might help us to ally our service capacities). They do not want to see us as worrying co-stakeholders but to keep seing us as paying consumers ("the customer is the problem, the solution, and now the competition"). RFC 6852 (standardization modern paradigm) clearly defines the rules of the game. The technical references are now the "global communities". As a result there is no more a global unique referent as the IAB was, and there is no more a single appeal procedure. I wanted to enlight it in appealing RFC 6852, in order to force ISOC to acknowledge that either RFC 6852 was wrong and they still were the ultimate internet point of reference, or to state they were not anymore. On March, 14th, their USG political sponsor has raised the question with far more publicity than I could have get in proposing that ICANN takes that lead. ICANN, for the time being, has disregarded our too long delayed emergence. So did Sao Paulo. So, the responsibility is now for us (VGN Masters) to take control of our own destiny, and if VGNs are, as I believe, the right architectonic networking cells, we will simply become the largest "global community" market, free from the early edge dinosaurs who will have wasted a big opportunity. Architecturally it was unadvisable to split from the ICANN approach and invest in ML-DNS (multi-ledger DNS), before RFC 5895 and RFC 6455 had not been fully investigated by the IETF. Now the time has technically come. For investigation, documentation, experimentation, representation. This is what I prefer to invest in rather than arguing in the stratum below (transport). Moreover, what is of real interest for me is the stratum above this presentation stratum (that has to be eventually completed or at least well implemented): i.e. the semiotic stratum. Best jfc >AB > > >On 5/9/14, Jefsey wrote: > > "By now, most people know who Google is and what Google does. Google > > serves billions of online users in this country and around the world > > … With little or no revenue from its users, Google still manages to > > turn a healthy profit by selling advertisements within its products > > that rely in substantial part on users' personal identification > > information … in this model, the users are the real product. " > > > > http://www.scribd.com/doc/189329787/Google-Privacy-Policy-Ruling > > > > This explains why we do not want to be subject, through an US > > incorporated structure, to a Law which considers us as edge > > providers' products. We consider ourselves as the independent users > > of a common resource we co-organize through our VGNs and we pay > > twice: (1) as an ISP subscriber and (2) as a tax payer having to > > compensate for the Google's tax deductions. > > > > We demand our Governements to protect us from this legal creep, and > > our engineers to technically defend us from it. We therefore cannot > > adhere to a Sao Paulo document which reserves network neutrality for > > further discussions. We certainly are strangled right now, but we are > > too many to die. > > > > jfc morfin > > fsp4.net, bootstrapper From nobody Wed May 14 09:41:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95EC41A02B2 for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N4mM-ahm_cEa for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [209.135.209.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E346B1A02BF for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E54F2C0AE for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 12:41:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nkhWDTtLRTuG for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 12:41:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-96-241-226-168.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.226.168]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C90F2C0A8 for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 12:41:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Russ Housley Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-165-871666128 Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 12:41:00 -0400 Message-Id: <8B51185D-D0A7-4744-AFFF-CEA9DF1D6B77@vigilsec.com> To: internetgovtech@iab.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/2eyoDbRsf-w93DWLm6cDiqRG6ac Subject: [Internetgovtech] Letter from General Counsel of US Department of Commerce X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:41:51 -0000 --Apple-Mail-165-871666128 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The General Counsel of the US Department of Commerce wrote a letter to = Congress on May 6th documenting their position about the NTIA authority = to transition the stewardship role regarding the IANA Functions. http://www.commerce.gov/os/ogc/letters/views-letter-hr-4342=20 --Apple-Mail-165-871666128 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
The = General Counsel of the US Department of Commerce wrote a letter to = Congress on May 6th documenting their position about = the NTIA authority to transition the stewardship role = regarding the IANA Functions.


= --Apple-Mail-165-871666128--