Re: [ga] At-Large membership: definition
At 04:13 05/01/2006, Karl Auerbach wrote: It's time to abandon the ALAC. It was a product of the minds of several people who intentionally wanted to dismember individual participation in ICANN. The ALAC had its chance; it has failed. Karl, @large was a way to define Internet activists wanting to share in the Internet Governance. This was a self-nominated democracy the GA list is a remnant. Time is gone where DNs were something special (except for AmerICANN staff survival). We now have to adapt to the reality: the need to switch to a new global architectural and governance. ICANN interests no one (except North American, as their internationalized national network system). There are two probable sources for this change. One if the NSF/DARPA sponsored effort (NewArch, GENI, etc.) a continuation of the old RFC 1287. The other is the possibly emerging IGF, after the Tunis deal. I suppose IGF will include ITU with the NGN, EU with yet to define propositions, Chinese, Japanese, Indian possible emerging solutions. They must include grassroots. Basically they consider three approaches: (1) updating the Internet, but IPv6 shown the difficulty (2) replacing the Internet (3) a multitechnology digital ecosystem, with TCP/IP being one of the supported technologies. The three approaches are network centric, by network geeks: nothing real will hit the users before a decade. Just read the IAB-discuss archives.There is another way. There are three architectural main layers: infrastructure (equipments), structure (protocols), metastructure (common practices). Experience shows that innovation starts with structure. Then infrastructure imposes its (financial) constraints during the deployment period. Eventually project maturation is when the metastructure takes the lead. What ICANN called @large are the people interested in the metastructure (IP addresses are of higher concern than DNs). These people have now to take the lead to define, build and operate a user centric architecture. But there is technical competence issue. Until now IETF has attracted the engineers. Among them many are also interested in a proper governance of the whole system and in their own small network/home network (SNHN) as any other ALAC denied person. We therefore need to work out a structure where Danny is as much at ease as IETF geeks. This is the project I have of an IGFTF (Internet Governance Forum Task Force). It would share into the Internet standard process, commenting/assisting in societal, economical and political ethic and usage aspects areas. Same with the IGF for the grassroots process, ITU, ETSI, etc... It would bring IGF concerns to the IETF and other Internet SSDOs, and IETF/SSDOs concerns and @large experience to the IGF. IESG has already formally implied the concerned topics were no part of the IETF job. I appealed to the IAB to have a confirmation that the IGFTF is not contentious. One of the priorities of the IGFTF is obviously multilingualisation vs. internationalization. The top priority. jfc And the ALAC has not failed merely in the US; it has failed everywhere.
|