<html>
<body>
For information, here is my submission. If it may help. Additions welcome
as this is also used in the post RFC 6852 debate about: "who is the
IAB successor as the ultimate Internet/Digital
architectural/architectonical referent?"<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
----<br><br>
<b>1. Which stakeholder category do
you belong to:<br><br>
</b>(a) Government<br><br>
(b) Business community<br><br>
<b>(c) <u>Civil Society<br><br>
</u></b>(e) Intergovernmental and international organizations<br><br>
<b> </b><i>(d) Technical and academic community<br><br>
There is no such thing as a technical and academic stakeholder category.
There are technical and academic people in every category. Thinking
otherwise is the main barrier to the enhanced cooperation concept as it
distributes people by capacities rather than uniting them by
responsibilities.<br><br>
<br>
</i><b>2. What do you think is the i)
significance, ii) purpose and iii) scope of enhanced cooperation as per
the Tunis Agenda?<br>
</b> <br>
I am afraid I have no idea about what significance, purpose, and scope
may be referring to here. All I know is that there is:<br>
<br>
2.1. <u>A fundamental change in the way humanity understands itself and
the universe</u>. <br>
<br>
UNESCO and ITU have agreed to call the “Information Society” the result
of this change. <br>
<br>
We might summarize it as follows: geometry implies that one can consider
everything, from the inside as a subject, from the outside as an object,
and (in the case of non-commutative geometry) from the “timeside” as a
project.
<ul>
<li> From Aristotle to Copernicus we have based ourselves on
subjective philosophy.
<li>With Newton, objective science <a href="??">completed
it</a><a name="_msoanchor_1"></a>[MHL1] until the end of the 19th
century.
<li>Then we began uncovering mechanics, reality, society, time, etc. as a
holist complex network intricacy.
</ul>It started with Henri Poincaré’s non-resolution of the n-body
problem in 1889. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem shows that man cannot
scale and control the reality’s networked laws that constrain his
projects without a more fundamental 4D and holist approach than the
Aristotelian linear 3D+time logic. There are three ways for him to do it:
<ul>
<li><u>communication</u>: sharing all the <b>data</b> to symbiotically
immerse in reality.
<li><u>information</u>: discovering new <b>metadata</b> on architectonic
pre-fundamentality.
<li><u>intellition</u>: uncovering <b>syllodata</b> (data between data)
that interlink the reality’s network and comprehending their principles,
parameters, and protocols.
</ul>For a century, much has been covered in these three areas, from
intuition, through reason, to reflection. It results in an unlimited,
fractal network of quantum <b>agorics </b>(*), making the Universe itself
a referent model of enhanced cooperation. <br><br>
<i>(*) <u>Agorics</u>: “Everything may participate in the demonstration
or the result of everything”. It is the polylectic <b><u>generalization
of</u></b> the monolectic cybernetics and of the dialectic
<b><u>logics</u></b>. <br><br>
</i> <br>
2.2. <u>Only two proactive enhanced cooperation related Tunis
points</u>.<br>
<br>
<i>#71: it gave the UN Secretary-General responsibility to initiate an
enhanced cooperation trend, in involving all relevant organizations by
the end of the first quarter of 2006, and all stakeholders in their
respective roles, proceeding as quickly as possible and being responsive
to innovation. <br>
</i> <br>
The UN Secretary did not fulfill that mission.<br><br>
<i>Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced
cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible
and responsive to innovation</i>. <i>The same relevant organizations
shall be requested to provide annual performance reports.<br>
</i> <br>
The relevant organizations did not significantly engage in specific
enhanced cooperations and there is no broadly advertised website where
any EC report could be published.<br>
<br>
This action point has, therefore, failed.<br>
<br>
<i>And # 89: We are determined to improve international, regional and
national connectivity and affordable access to ICTs and information
through an enhanced international cooperation of all stakeholders that
promotes technology exchange and technology transfer, …<br>
<br>
</i>I observed a civil society pseudo-symmetric (the involved forces were
asymmetric but the IETF normative context granted some tactical symmetry)
enhanced cooperation between:
<ul>
<li>international organization: OSI TC37/TC42
<li>Civil society: IUCG@IETF
<li>OpenStand upholders: IETF, Unicode
(<a href="http://open-stand.org">http://open-stand.org</a>, RFC 6852)
<li>Remote influence of governments (USA, UK, GAC)
</ul>This concerned the “multilingualization” dubbed
“internationalization” – i.e. another word for e-colonization (langtags,
IDNA2008). It exemplifies how specialized enhanced cooperation
initiatives can self-constitute, behave, and bring innovation in spite of
the lack of any UN General Secretary initiated momentum. This results
from the self-organizing criticality
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality</a>) of the
internet architectural principles:
<ul>
<li>robustness (RFC 1122),
<li>permanent adaptation (RFC 1958)
<li>simplicity (RFC 3439)
<li>and subsidiarity (as exemplified by RFC 5895).
</ul><i>… human resource development and training, thus increasing the
capacity of developing countries to innovate and to participate fully in,
and contribute to, the Information Society.<br><br>
</i>The difficulties I met in the area of multilingualization and
cultural protection from blunt over-technicalization show the limits of
the limited civil society/private sector led enhanced cooperation
attempts without a formal involvement of Governments and International
organizations.<br><br>
<br>
<b>3. To what extent has or has not
enhanced cooperation been implemented? Please give examples to support
your answer.<br>
<br>
</b>In the area that I know (namely, OpenUse, i.e. the capacity to
adequately use information, communication, and intellition technologies
in conformance with the WSIS people centered esthetic), some ECs
(enhanced cooperations) exist that are inherited from the past and have
not been updated yet to multistakeholderism.<br>
<br>
Two typical examples are:
<ul>
<li>The world normalization process which involves three stakeholders’
categories (regalian domain, private sector, and international
organizations) and has not been open to Free R&D (open-accesses at no
cost).
<li>ICANN is a not very transparent enhanced cooperation formula where
civil society (@larges) is de facto controlled through the T&L
contributions management.
</ul>One should also mention the pre-alternative to the formalization of
enhanced cooperations, which is counterwars. In this case, a counterwar
usually is an asymmetric action engaged by one single or a coalition of
stakeholders, from one or several categories, against a strategy engaged
by one or a coalition of other stakeholders who:
<ul>
<li>either do not want to engage in an open enhanced cooperation process
<li>or try to inadequately coordinate or dominate an existing cooperation
process.
</ul>The purpose of a counterwar is, therefore, precautionary. Its
legitimacy results from the risk of further conflicts that might result
from such issues as growing political opposition, scientific or
environmental implications of technical choices, ethitechnical
divergences on the targeted social esthetic, utilization of norms for
e-colonization, etc. <br><br>
It is noteworthy that as long as a counterwar remains on both sides
within the limits of the proportionality principle, it can resolve into
an enhanced cooperation agreement that other stakeholders from every
category can then join and stabilize. However, we only have a very
limited experience of these limits in the WSIS multistakeholderist
context. It might be worth investigating them in areas such as naming,
addressing, tariffs, and cultural exception. The internet would then be
used as its own test-bed in <b>societal </b>(and not only technical)
limited experimentations. <br><br>
<br>
<b>4. What are the relevant
international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet?<br>
</b> <br>
There are no specific issues. This is like asking what are the relevant
international public policy issues pertaining to Ford cars? Or to
Paraguayan railways. I mean by this that dealing with the “Internet”
(moreover with an upper case “I”) is a local, corporate, ministry, or
national circumstantial issue. <br>
<br>
The WSIS concerns are wider. They concern the “information society” and
the “digisphere” (i.e. the societal reality of the networked computer
assisted human brainware world), not only the internet. IGF is a
misnomer.<br>
<br>
I am not playing with words here. The reason why enhanced cooperation
cannot develop is due to the wish to use a probably correct theory
(enhanced cooperation, dynamic coalitions, IGF, multistakeholderism,
etc.) in perpetrating a layer violation. The internet architecture, as
every other networking architecture, taught us that layer violations lead
to immediate failures.<br>
<br>
The internet is only a tool. The layer violation results from a confusion
between uncoupled concepts such as the “internet”, the “web” and the
“information society”. They belong to different layers. For example:
managing the Internet DNS, and influencing the ICANN market monopoly on
its ICANN/NTIA CLASS “IN” is not the IGF’s business. The IGF is to host
and encourage discussions on digital naming within the information
society in order to foster concerted innovations of every nature in that
area.<br>
<br><br>
<b>5. What are the roles and
responsibilities of the different stakeholders, including Governments, in
implementation of the various aspects of enhanced cooperation?<br>
<br>
</b>There is no predetermined general role or responsibility for any
stakeholder other than to be its own self and respect others along with
the subsidiarity mechanism. <br>
<br>
The human society has not changed. It is its context that is extending.
This implies new tasks; they are not conceptually different from other
tasks that result from other issues such as demography or global warning.
Each culture may experiment in its own way to fulfill its new
obligations. Up to now, our less tight calendar allowed us to have the
time to experiment and, therefore, to be able to confront solutions and
copy the most successful “models”. <br>
<br>
Since the “future shock” that Alvin Toffler identified in 1970 as “<i>too
much change in too short a period of time”</i>, we had to use world
summits to confront ideas “from the future” rather than mainly
scrutinizing experiences and statistics from the past. This is a new way
of deciding. This has also changed the way we are to implement our
decisions because we usually have no one else to copy: all of us must
learn on the move. <br>
<br>
This is why we had to come to subsidiarity and mutual help in case
someone or everyone fails.<br>
<br>
We agreed that we wanted to go fast. Therefore, it is up to the first one
who is ready. We hoped that the UN General Secretary would give the
momentum. He did not, or at least not enough. Therefore, it is up to any
of those who are ready in their own area to start an “enhanced
cooperation” with his/her/its neighbors in that area. This may lead to
something that the WSIS did not foresee and that blocks its process:
conflicts between enhanced cooperations; as in Dubai for the ITU December
meeting on the World Telecommunications Treaty. The IGF is the place to
settle such conflicts.<br>
<br>
This is mutual help toward subsidiarity based on good will capacity.<br>
<br><br>
<b>6. How should enhanced cooperation
be implemented to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out
their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet?<br>
</b> <br>
Let us forget the “pertaining to the internet” part. Enhanced cooperation
means that there is no latent authority to unite different subsidiaries:
this authority is to be concerted.<br>
<br>
The difficulty that the concept meets is, as usual, that we want to turn
principles into universal rules. The world is diverse and the different
forms of enhanced cooperation are too. This means that an ethereal
“enhanced cooperation” singular is meaningless. An enhanced cooperation
spirit is to motivate and embody into a multiplicity of applied and
structured enhanced cooperation projects, charters, budgets, rules,
voluntaries, servants, etc. We humans are quite used to this, but in
here, for the first time, we are also to cooperate with bots, the
thousands, millions, billions, and trillions of bots that we have to weld
the world’s new <b>anthropobotic</b> (men/women+bots) society
together.<br>
<br>
NB: In order to best achieve this welding, we agreed at the WSIS that it
had to be people centered, while most of its context is legitimately
(world’s economy) dollar centered. This certainly is another
challenge.<br>
<br><br>
<b>7. How can enhanced cooperation
enable other stakeholders to carry out their roles and
responsibilities?<br>
</b> <br>
The current failure of tree-sided only enhanced cooperations (without
enough attention paid to the people and too much to finances) might help
clean the world balance sheet. The hope is that some enhanced
cooperations will meet with some successes that could progressively
autocatalyze the entireworld’s digisphere by network propagation.<br>
<br><br>
<b>8. What are the most appropriate
mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the
Tunis Agenda, including on international public policy issues pertaining
to the Internet and public policy issues associated with coordination and
management of critical Internet resources? <br><br>
</b>The WSIS area is the information society. The appropriate mechanism,
at least one which can be attempted, is to decontaminate its enhanced
cooperations from their money virus and inject “some intellitive serum”
(the good practice of negentropic intelligent linking). The first
candidate could be the naming system, as a positive result would be
widely noticed; however, there is also a major risk of hijacking by
obscure market forces if it is not quickly sponsored by a global enhanced
cooperation, which should include ICANN, but not depend on ICANN.
<br><br>
<br>
<b>9. What is the possible
relationship between enhanced cooperation and the IGF?<br><br>
</b>As far as I understand, the IGF is where dynamic coalitions advising
enhanced cooperations cross-pollinate.<br><br>
When considering the role it should play, it should be renamed the
“inter-governance forum of the information society”. <br>
<br><br>
<b>10. How can the role of developing countries be made more
effective in global Internet governance?<br>
</b> <br>
They should be made to participate in the enhanced cooperation mechanism.
Actually, since that mechanism has been appropriated by the blocking
StatUS-Quo disciples, they should take leadership in the government
category new initiatives, allying with Civil Society and the innovative
side of small businesses. <br>
<br>
Developing countries should become internet development countries,
providing paperwork-havens to paperless businesses. The main limitation
to economic development in the digital area is developed countries’
bureaucracy. <br><br>
Network businesses do not need bureaucracy or a tax haven. They need
bureaucracy free virtual zones with an online bank account that they and
their own government can trust, and hence an enhanced cooperation with
the target of decently supporting independent multinational initiatives
(IMI). They are certainly willing to pay taxes for what they get, but not
taxes for a bureaucracy that they hate.<br>
<br>
It would also be great to have low cost digital architectonic BarCamps
hold in developing countries together with local people rather than in
luxury resorts. Maybe more ideas and work than egos and business bias
when flying a charter and sleeping on a camp bed?<br>
<br><br>
<b>11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully
participate in their respective roles in global Internet governance? How
can these barriers best be overcome?<br>
</b> <br>
The main difficulty is to get real in a new world for all. How can you
want at the same time someone to be innovative and pragmatically correct?
<br>
<br>
The problem is the same everywhere: political correctness is the key to
money. The only solution, therefore, is:
<ul>
<li>Either to abide by political correctness and not to move and
innovate
<li>Or to dramatically reduce the cost/time to market.
</ul>Richard Stallman took a major step ahead with FLOSS. We now need to
go deeper than Linux into the digisphere itself, which means a real
enhanced cooperation effort.
<ul>
<li>For civil society it goes with network neutrality and providers’
reliability.
<li>For governments it goes with sovereignty.
<li>For international organizations with connectivity at all of the
layers from hardware to brain (semantic layers).
<li>For business it goes with the banalization of the network/cloud
trust.
</ul>Network non-neutrality in different usages, layer violations, tariff
disparities, etc. has a huge cost that Civil Society engineers cannot
overcome without talking together. This in turn has a cost due to the
lack of a lead user social network. A “lead user” is a user who is
interested in and technically capable of adapting what he/she uses to
suit his/her own needs.<br>
<br>
This is what I attempted with the IUCG@IETF for the fringe to fringe
layers over the end to end, and the IUTF for the Intelligent Use fringe
to fringe layers and above. <br>
<br>
Some help would be welcome. However, the problem is to get it <b>free
from obligations</b> to other stakeholders.<br>
<br><br>
<b>12. What actions are needed to promote effective
participation of all marginalised people in the global information
society?<br>
<br>
</b>To keep it simple. <br><br>
<i>“Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but
when there is nothing left to take away.” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
<br>
</i> <br>
In our area, this is taught to us by the internet success. Its
architecture is documented by four RFCs that apply principles that belong
to every enhanced (human, economic, technical, network, etc.)
cooperation:
<ul>
<li><pre>RFC 1122. Robustness principle</b>. "Be liberal in what you
accept, and conservative in what you send", striving for the
"least user surprise".
<li>RFC 1958. "The principle of constant change</b> is perhaps the
only principle of the Internet that should survive indefinitely".
"It is also generally felt that end-to-end functions can best be
realised by end-to-end protocols. [] Everything else should be done at
the fringes". (our intelligent use of the internet IS something
else).
<li>RFC 3439. Principle of simplicity</b>: "to be successful we must
drive our architectures and designs toward the simplest possible
solutions".
<li>RFC 5895. Principle of subsidiarity</b>: "As unusual as this may
be for a document concerning Internet protocols, it is necessary to
describe [] an operation that is to be applied to user input in order to
prepare that user input for use in an "on the network"
protocol”. The dividing line between "user interface" and
"protocol" is clear. The protocol part [] explicitly does not
deal with the user interface.</pre>
</ul>The more we make sure that marginalized people’s needs (this begins
with multilingualization, i.e. every language treated the same as
English, and multilingual domain names) can be addressed by subsidiarity
will give the momentum, architecture, architectonic and technical ethic
to promote and, more than that, to permit the participation of all the
marginalized people with their necessary active involvement for them to
document their needs.<br>
<br>
Full social e-empowerment (access, site, domain name) should be free
(like Wikipedia) and paid by commercial e-empowerment. The Internet today
is like a city where you should pay to walk the street and enter the
shops. This is not a real enhanced cooperation among businesses and
consumers, and probably not that good for commerce. <br>
<br><br>
<b>13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward
global, social and economic development?<br>
</b> <br>
Cooperation embodiment into cooperations’ projects is the only form of
societal concerted life that humanity has known for millenaries. Its
“enhancement” is only a way to mention its global context, complexity
extension, and resulting need for computer assisted facilitation. <br>
<br>
Let us be candid. This questionnaire shows that the WSIS has turned into
a virtual bureaucracy that wants to help people cooperate. If we want to
help them, we need to inform them as to what is possible, teach them for
free (ex. MOOCs), and reduce the old constraints that are inadequate for
their new business. If the information society is a progress, this means
that it needs fewer social constraints than before. So let permit people
adapt the constraints that they wish to keep and forget the others. Let
us not add the our ones on top of their old ones.<br>
<br><br>
<b>14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting
the development of local language content? <br>
</b> <br>
Languages, first of all, are interbrain protocols. Up to now, these
protocols were used between HSS-NSPs (Homo Sapiens Sapiens versions of
Natural Semantic Processors). They are progressively also being used by
evolutive DAB-ASP (Digital Algorithmic Bots versions of Artificial
Semantic Processors). As such, they become
"mecalanguages".<br>
<br>
The question that needs answering, therefore, is who is going to lead the
linguistic evolution: people or semantic processor designers, developers,
and their sponsors? When one considers the attention paid by IETF
dominants to the Unicode consortium (not to the tables), Raymond
Kurzweil’s current job description which is "to bring natural
language understanding to Google", and what I had to fight for at
the IETF to protect languages and cultures from protocol limitations, the
priority is to claim for a <b><u>Linguistic Exception</u></b> as an
extension of the WTO French required <b>Cultural Exception</b>.<br>
<br><br>
<b>15. What are the international internet-related public
policy issues that are of special relevance to developing countries?
<br>
</b> <br>
There are two different issues involved in this question.<br>
<ul>
<li><b>One is economic</b>: it should be addressed according to the
principle of subsidiarity to be the most effillient (efficient and
resilient) by each of the countries, at least as much as by the World
Bank and the IMF.
<li><b>The other is intellectual</b>: one of the characteristics of our
time is that we are to think in tune with the whole information society
as we perceive it. To do that we are to be <u>practically</u> permitted
to think freely in terms of our <u>personal</u> context that will be
adapted to our local/societal environment.
</ul>This is why the information society is to be people centric. This is
out of effilience again. However, this time one may understand that this
portmanteau word also concatenates Aristotle’s word “philia”: efficacy,
philia, resilience. <br><br>
Philia is a key relational/network related concept. It is
<i>"wanting for someone what one thinks good, for his sake and not
for one's own, and being inclined, so far as one can, to do such things
for him" (Aristotle)</i>. <br><br>
This means that eventually working for other’s good leads to a better
return through the agoric network of reality. This is an “OpenCapa”
attitude that we should work on: capacity building is <b><u>for everyone
by everyone</u></b>, at the individual level. Your coach may belong to a
financially developing or to an intellectually underdeveloping community.
<br><br>
<br>
<b>16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the
affordability of the Internet, in particular in developing countries and
least developed countries.<br>
</b> <br>
Help people in <u>every</u> country to share and deploy
<b>digiliteracy</b>. The digisphere is the way people (individual,
families, structures, cities, States) accommodate digital facilitation in
their own life. Personal empowerment is a whole, which only now includes
an additional way to grasp at reality.<br><br>
<br>
<b>17. What are the national capacities to be developed and
modalities to be considered for national governments to develop
Internet-related public policy with participation of all
stakeholders?<br>
<br>
</b>Protect e-sovereignty, and for that identify what it is. How do you
want to develop national capacities if one starts trying to impose
foreign values, languages, and decisions. The first thing to do is to
respect the HRD 15th article.<br>
<br><br>
<b>18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on
enhanced cooperation you would like to submit?<br><br>
</b>We need to have a 31st article of the Human Rights declaration
concerning the cyberspace. This should be one of the first enhanced
cooperations (HR31 Project).
<ul>
<li>The right to exist, be secure, and be digiliterate in the cyberspace
<li>The right to own (author’s rights and intellectual property) in the
cyberspace
<li>The right to freely speak and access legitimate knowledge in the
cyberspace
<li>The right to filter and be protected against disinformation in the
cyberspace
<li>The right to associate in the cyberspace
</ul>---<br>
<br>
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “The grand chessboard” concludes that the world’s
stability calls for a global cooperation of nations coordinated by the
pre-eminent USA. Most of the other nations could share either a direct or
an indirect (through regional cooperations) opinion: they have precisely
refused that option through the WSIS multistakeholderist consensus
(including the USA), considering that enhanced cooperation was to be on
an equal footing basis and that stakeholders had to not interfere with
the legitimate rights of any other one.<br><br>
However, the <b><u>transition</u></b> to this new world
<b><u>polycracy</u></b> cannot be carried out quickly and demand
transitional <b><u>warranties</u></b> for all. There should be an
enhanced cooperation started on the transitional issues: this certainly
belongs to the architectonic debate that I am calling for, since
prospective aspects must be involved. To cooperate on a transition, we
first have to spell out where we want to land together: for the time
being, we know two things.
<ul>
<li>We agreed on a big change: a people centered world. (no more a money
or State centered one – Social-State to serve and protect people).
<li>We obviously have a strong and legitimate consensus for a
“satUS-quo+”, i.e. at least, let us protect what we have today. The
win/win constraints are always difficult.
</ul>---<br>
<br>
Richard Buckminster Fuller explained that one cannot change people
(moreover with a people centered esthetic in mind), but that one can
change their environment and context. This is why some are tempted by the
social engineering of a world more favorable to their business or agenda.
<br>
<br>
Actually, there is no need of it: our context is extending itself alone
(like the universe is expanding). Particularly in recent decades but
aactually since 1889, when Poincaré proved Newton wrong about the n-body
problem, we have carried out a few steps in this opening of Plato’s
cave that we have been striving toward for millenaries.<br>
<br>
The world is currently buzzing a lot about the openness of our “personal,
public, or peer reality information system mediation”
(<b>Open-PRISM</b>). Enhanced cooperation is basically justified by well
assessed common interests and trust. Trust cannot be taken for granted or
imposed by laws, treaties, or brainwashing. Therefore, we must know about
the reality “behind” it all. And what is in it for each of us. This is
intellition, our new technological and societal frontier.<br>
<br>
A digital information society is, therefore, built:
<ul>
<li>on <b>what you see</b> with your own eyes, as any other society (3D)
<li>also at the same time (4D when time becomes relative, thanks to
Einstein)
<li>on <b>what you mine</b> with your own mining mediator. This is why
you want it protected from any biasing influence through semantic
filters, assisted by selected/private reference frames concerning the
three (1) <b>data</b>, (2) <b>metadata, </b>and (3) <b>syllodata</b>
dimensions documenting your actual or virtual reality (7D).
</ul>This permits one to understand why enhanced cooperations can only
first develop across multi-stakeholders’ “pre-trusted” areas. An example
will explain this better: USA/Europe trade cooperation talks survived
Edward Snowden because the different negotiators trust their own <b>data
</b>mining system intelligent mediators as being able enough to
adequately facilitate their understanding of the secret intents
(<b>metadata)</b> of other parties and helping them build punctual
objective dynamic coalitions (<b>syllodata</b>) as they see it as
advantageous for their own interests, regardless of what side of the
big-pond they come from, etc.: the data face is just as fractal as the
physical space.<br><br>
An enhanced cooperation is necessarily like a poker play in an infinity
mirror room where you distrust the other players but trust your sight and
are harassed by experts and activists from dynamic coalitions. This
necessarily calls for “agoric” thinking, which is something only a few
people are already accustomed to in the data face side, and still fewer
have become familiar with the idea, but it was the basic rationale
behind:
<ul>
<li>the first international network technology (Tymnet)
<li>the subsidiarity principle, now accepted as the way the Internet
technology supports diversity (RFC 5895).
</ul><a name="_GoBack"></a>It is, therefore, likely that the technology
metaphor will progressively “pollute” the brain of stakeholders and lead
them to accept it better, as experts and activists from dynamic
coalitions become familiar with the universal architectonic laws of large
ecosystems (that we are learning from nature and banks ignored). The
world digital ecosystem should hopefully emerge as a balanced dynamic
effilience made of “three thirds”:
<ul>
<li>an innovative chaos eroding structures becoming conservative,
<li>a progressive meshing of new structures in an enhanced cooperation
spirit,
<li>an order of organized enhanced cooperations.
</ul>It is up to us to analyze, understand, comprehend, protect and help
catalyzing its harmony. <br>
<a name="_msocom_1"></a><br>
</body>
</html>