<html>
<body>
Dear Jeremy,<br><br>
Your workshop description is a good summary of an architectonic (what is
to be discussed and agreed on “before”) preparatory meeting. However, I
am afraid that, in order to become semantically consistent:<br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a><br>
- either the "particularly in the technical sphere" phrase
should be removed. So far, the legal definition of the internet is given
by 31 USC 5362, which states: "The term Internet means the
international computer network of interoperable packet switched data
networks." <br><br>
- or an extended definition of the term "internet" should be
consensually agreed on among all the stakeholders. <br><br>
I do not oppose studying this last possibility but I do fear the blocking
confusion creep that I observe everywhere. From your agenda it is
difficult to grasp as to what notions this "internet" term
would actually concatenate (as you remember "catenet" from
“concatenate” was the founding portmanteau term for the concept of what
you describe). <br><br>
I feel that such an "internet" term would want to be a synonym
for the structurally open concept of "digisphere", which is
clear enough within the global modeling context of layers, planes, and
spheres and the historic “digital renormalization” progression (switch
from analog continuity to digital discontinuity). The
"internet" term does not include any notion of human brain
involvement, only of network interconnections. The network of networks.
Possibly the networks of the network of network. It is understood and
legally defined as machine only.<br><br>
If we were to extend the term “internet” in that way (i.e. some
comprehensive internet usership, probably with userhood criteria), not
only it would be a big change, but we would still need a term for the
<b><u>inter</u></b>national computer <b><u>net</u></b>work of
interoperable packet switched data networks, and there would be a
confusion with the term “digisphere”.<br><br>
This is not quibbling. This is because in addition to the syntax issue
that deters (and the received rebukes about it which repulse) non-native
speakers, the semantics is the main delaying problem of
multistakeholderism as it is already built on four additionally
acknowledged cultural visions. How could we hope to globally agree, when
there is no systematically assisted effort and philia to help us
understand one another?<br><br>
We need to accept a few complementary syntactic systems (as ISO standards
do) because no single natural language is fully adequate for the
semantics of what we need to achieve. Then we need to use a <u>common</u>
ontology, supported by its vocabulary, with its inferred taxonomy,
resulting reference framework, documented architectonies (generalized
models) and ontographic metaphors.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
At 10:28 02/09/2013, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Following on from the Enhanced
Cooperation submission to the CSTD, the following workshop will be held
at the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF this Wednesday, with live streaming at
<a href="http://2013.rigf.asia/openness/">
http://2013.rigf.asia/openness/</a> from 2:30pm local time (5:30am
GMT/UTC, 19:30 US EST). Please join us!
<dl>
<dd>Workshop Title: Internet governance for human rights and democracy
<dd>The Internet is governed through a patchwork of rules, norms and
standards, which its stakeholders have developed largely independently
and without reference to an overarching framework of principles.
This has allowed the Internet to flourish through the adaptive and
innovative development of new services, particularly in the technical
sphere. But the absence of guiding principles has also allowed
powerful stakeholders to drive changes to Internet governance that
conflict with human rights and other emerging global norms of Internet
user communities, though undemocratic processes such as the Trans-Pacific
Partnership Agreement, member-only discussions at the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU), and North-heavy regional groupings such
as the G8 and OECD. Is this status quo sustainable? Would it
help to democratise global Internet governance if all stakeholders had a
better way of developing guiding principles for policy makers in areas
that are not already covered by multi-stakeholder democratic
processes? How will the discussions at the CSTD Working Group on
Enhanced Cooperation be able to address this? What progress (if
any) was made at the ITU’s World Telecommunication/Information and
Communication Technology Policy Forum (WTPF)? What principles
initiatives already exist, and what role could the IGF play in
legitimising these at the global level? What other mechanisms are
available to advocate for the Internet we want, that is globally
democratic and respects human rights? This workshop will attempt to
address these questions, including through the presentation of concrete
proposals for practical reforms. <br><br>
<dd>A roundtable discussion that will feed into the two-day Best Bits
civil society meeting in Bali in October, and into two subsequent
multi-stakeholder workshops at the global IGF.<br><br>
</dl><br>
-- <br><br>
Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers<br>
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599<br><br>
Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub |
<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone">
http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone</a><br>
<br>
@Consumers_Int |
<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org">
www.consumersinternational.org</a> |
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational" eudora="autourl">
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a><br><br>
Read our
<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality">
email confidentiality notice</a>. Don't print this email unless
necessary.<br><br>
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended
to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see
<a href="http://jere.my/l/8m">http://jere.my/l/8m</a>.</blockquote></body>
</html>