Re: [ga] NTIA "Request for Information" on the IANA Functions

[JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 01:24 27/02/2006, Veni Mirkovski wrote:

> Hi!
> At 01:00 AM 27.2.2006 '?.'  +0100, JFC Morfin wrote:
> > Dear Danny,
> > I fully agree with your evaluation. However I think you miss what 
> > is the internet. It is not what its practical reality may be. It is 
> > what the users of the world think it is. This is why I tell Joop 
> > that the silence only shows that the GA is now only an American 
> > forum, like the Internet is now only an American network. The new 
> > world network will eventually be by the IGF.
>
> Actually you are right - but only to a certain extent. The Internet 
> is not a US network. The .com is the US network. All other domain 
> names are outside of the US-oriented monopoly.

The Internet is the  US national datacommunications Internationalised 
Network. This is a definition of the USC communications code. This is 
the decision of the US Congress. This is what the WSIS has agreed at 
the demand of the USA. This is the way the IETF develops it. Like if 
you will TWA was an US early worldwide airline. All the current DNS 
names are part of the US-oriented "monopoly" (we organised it under 
FCC license in 1984 [I was in charge] and then it went to the IANA).

> The IGF, on the other hand, will not be able to spread the usage of 
> Internet on a world-wide scale. Only citizens, netizens, can do 
> that. Governments may help or try to prevent, but they can't stop 
> the development of the Internet.

The IGF is not considering the same internet. It considers the world 
digital ecosystem and the way to use it. For the time being old IP is 
one of the most common solution. You have a very odd conception of 
the Governments :-) . Why do you want the Government to try to 
prevent the usage of datacommunications. But certainly every Gov, 
nation, people in the world are against the rampant US e-colonisation 
a certain understanding of the internet vehiculates. This is 
precisely to permit the world to freely organise, outside of an US 
industry/defense umbrella (which is not in the US interest: see the 
USG Statements of Principles) that the IGF has been created 
(including by the USA). Even if the US position is not a monolith, it 
tends to protect the best US interests; in a way it is therefore in 
the best common interests, if the other move themselves. (In a global 
system, the interests are common. There are only win/win or lose/lose 
situations).

> > Good or bad, ICANN is the only US acceptable solution for the IANA 
> > management at this time. Every other solution will be considered as 
> > a privatisation of the Internationalised US Internet, and the 
> > signal for balkanisation.
>
> I have to disagree - as I always do - with using a term, that has a 
> very narrow history base. Balkanisation for me - coming from 
> Bulgaria - means actually http://www.goranbregovic.co.yu/ , or the 
> music of the genious English violin player Nigel Kennedy with the 
> Kroke band from Poland (google for album "East meets East")

It has a very precise meaning in English and French etc. It means to 
act in order to replace as stable united system by conflicting 
various conflicting subsystems.
jfc