<html>
<body>
Dear "Isolated",<br>
I fully agree with you. The most balanced and authoritative evaluation of
the problem is what IAB writes in RFC 3869. They states:<br><br>
"The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding
is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of
the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. In addition to
issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also
affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the
development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care about
the effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the
Internet. At the same time, many significant research contributions in
networking have come from commercial funding. However, for most of
the [IAB R&D priorities listed] in this document, relying solely on
commercially-funded research would not be adequate."<br><br>
This is why after having urgently contained at IETF and ISO a set of poor
commercial initiatives endangering languages and cultures in cyberspace,
I: <br>
- have initiated the IUCG iucg@ietf.org mailing list,
<a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg" eudora="autourl">
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg<br>
</a>- am concerting with IESG over the organisation and charter of the
<a href="http://iucg.org/" eudora="autourl">http://iucg.org</a> site,
<br>
- wait for an IAB decision, <br>
- and submitted an IETF Draft on IETF precautionary duty and the
necessary participation of users and people
(<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iucg-precaution-00.txt" eudora="autourl">
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iucg-precaution-00.txt</a>).<br>
<br>
It is necessary to take advantage from past experiences. However, history
never repeats and the lesson is not only what as happened and the
eventual (necessarily accidental and technical layer dependent) results,
but the level where that kind of things happened and were decided. If we
really want to understand the today's situation we also have at least to
remember things before we were born such as: the telephone/TV/press
history, most of the Cybernetics societal impact (technical and most of
all political, from where date (50's) the dichotomy between
"engineers" and "users", who are not the people but a
new brand of the next epoch (60's) "consumers"), the Internet
architecture as documented (and not documented) in RFC 1958, and the IETF
Internet technology core values (RFC 3935) since the technology is not
what it could be but what respect them [and we have good reasons why to
disagree with their 80's vision].<br><br>
Lessig is correct. The Internet (hence the virtual and part of the real
world) constitution is in the code. The source code, i.e. what decides of
it: the RFCs. For too long we believed we unable to write RFCs. This
cannot because IETF tries to keep a consistent/coherent set of the 5.500
- to many for CS - of them. But, we can specify, in our own visions,
words and languages, what the RFC framework should be. In the exact way
you say it: not in opposing but in helping, guiding, cooperating with
other IGF poles. This has a huge advantage for the IETF: their mission
(RFC 3935) is to make the Internet work better for us. But the only way
they have to know if they succeeded or not, is when we use their
propositions or disregard them long after. Already 15 years for IPv6, 10
for DNSSEC; 20 for some DNS extensions. The IUCG is about us to telling
them _before_ - so they can work on something more concrete, more along
our need and ideas; and dialog with us, in their own way of
thinking.<br><br>
The difficulty, where I need help now the Charter is finished
<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki/IUCG_Charter" eudora="autourl">
http://iucg.org/wiki/IUCG_Charter</a> - is to work-out a site, a method
which can act as an interface between the civil and the engineering
society. To translate our own words (in every languages) into technical
contributions the IESG and IAB can understand and the IETF work
on.<br><br>
This also call for us to determine what HR, privacy, Net neutrality,
spam, names, development, access, etc. technically require. Please let us
not tell we do not know: most of what we legally discuss are contractual
[ICANN], legal [GAC] or application layer [IETF, ex. IDNA]) patches to a
few major lacks of the Internet technology: no-built-in security, no
session and presentation layers. We can decide to continue that way in
better technically organizing it (this is at least necessary for any
transition), to change that (this has a cost and constraints), and how to
change it (there are several possible architectures and "network
contracts"). This only is that we cannot continue for ever to
overload a 1983 prototype academic system with everything _and_ its
contrary.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
At 06:21 19/12/2008, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hello Karl Peters,<br><br>
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Karl E. Peters
<<a href="mailto:karl.peters@bridgecompanies.com">
karl.peters@bridgecompanies.com</a>> wrote:
<dl>
<dd> Very well stated! I might just comment that in
many areas very soon, and in more later, it will not even be cable, but
rather wireless providers that carry most of the freight and are best
positioned to capture their markets.
<dd> In a brief moment of fairness to the cable TV
companies though, they brought us MANY stations we would never have had,
even in major broadcast markets, and for some more rural markets where
even "local" stations were not clear, vastly improved viewing
ability and convenience. Unlike the internet, however, what preceeded
cable is still available for free if you live where you can recieve it
and are satisfied with the limited choices. <br><br>
</dl><br>
That is a fair observation. Often in presenting the Civil Society views
most of us focus only on challenging the negative moves by business or
government that what we write reads like an attempt to depict business or
government as evil. The focus was in correcting what is wrong so the good
things that needed to be said about cable companies did not feature in my
comment, it is very fair on your part to have brought that up. <br><br>
Most participants of the Civil Society are moderate, balanced people. I
haven't seen many with a "holier than thou" attitude - holier
than business and holier than governments. Multistakeholderism does not
work by asking all other stakeholders to stay out of the room. Cable
companies have done a lot of good work, telcos have done a lot of good
work, proprietary business corporations in IT and Internet have done a
lot of good work, but the problem is that many of these companies still
fail to see how the magic works on the Internet. <br><br>
At a point of time when hotmail, yahoo and several email services were
running email services with rules such as log in at least once a month to
keep your account alive and pay $240 a year for a premium account with
TEN M E G A B I T S of storage, Google went online with most
so called premium features inherently bundled in (pop access, 9
months between log ins, message forward) and threw in a Gigabit of
storage for free. Why did google do something so foolish as to give away
the equivallent in a tiered storage model of a possible $1000 or $2000
for free? Fools? Rather intelligent, very intelligent entrepreneurs. Just
that what did not reach the minds of msn and yahoo reached the Google
entrepreneurs and they had figured out that it probably cost them less
than a dollar or some amount in that realm to per user to offer all this
to the user. Even if it is a dollar per user it was still foregoing the
'preemium' revenues that were perfectly justifiable under the established
norms of Internet business at that point of time. But those who continued
to follow the yahoolike models progressed at a rate that paled in
comparison with the revolutionary Google model. That is Internet's magaic
business model that caused the likes of Google and Skype to climb way
above the traditional enterprises with narrower models. (Here I have
refrained from commenting on some finer aspects of the Google model that
requires to challenged)<br><br>
The Civil Society isn't asking the bandwidth providers shut down shop and
disappear. All that it is asking them to do is try and figure out how the
magic business models work on the Internet. Thuraya, by the traditional
model ought to have been the richest telco in the world today, because by
far its revneue model was superficially the most lucrative model - the
user had to be something in the realm of $6 per minute even if he or she
was calling the person next door. What happened? A more visible example
is that the phone companies progressed to much higher levels of inherenet
networth and market capitalization as they slided proices from a dollar
or two per minute to a cent or two per minute (India).<br><br>
We are pro-business in our suggestion that the business corporations move
to the Internet model. The magic is intriguing but I can say that it
works and works well. If you don't belive in the Internet magic and
instead believe in archaic business practices and assume that you will
have an internet with free access to eBay and Amazon (who will pay to you
in bulk backdoor) and charge us to access anything worthwhile, the models
will fail so miserably that it would hurt your own fortunes.<br>
<dl>
<dd> Bringing this analogy back to the internet, now;
can you imagine a discounted internet service that only brings you
".org" access, for example, but for a cheaper price? Of course
not! This foolishness evident in limiting access for cheaper services in
the internet is exactly the battle the TLDA is waging for open access to
bring quality-run non-legacy TLDs to a wider audience, as well. We will
provide a carefully researched "recommended root" and the
information needed to make the simple and free changes to recieve and
offer "more channels" for the same price. Just as with cable
networks, some will carry better programming or content than others. Some
may well never be "watched" by most people; but everything will
be available for those that need or desire it. The only resistance will
come from those with a vested interest in a narrow and controlled market
that funnels more of the money to fewer end profit makers. ICANN, with
its relationship with NetSol and a few others is the perfect example of
this narrow approach, solely in the interest of capturing more
dollars.<br><br>
</dl><br>
Without going into the nuances, in general, it is NOT unfair on the part
of ICANN to 'capture' a share of the money from names and numbers. The
trade reaps revenues from names and numbers and if ICANN charges at
source a dollar or two, it would help ICANN financially sustain itself in
the face of a growing administrative (or co-ordinative) burden. But in
the process it should exercise all the caution not to revert the Internet
back to the era of DNS war and cause the Internt to be an Internet of
mutliple Network Solutions.<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>It may well be this kind of narrowness that makes the "more
channels" a feature the "renegade" providers can use as a
lure to draw people from the traditional providers. ICANN has the choice
to open up to the many well-run TLDs already operating as the initially
intended "test beds" or to try to grasp ever tighter onto what
it holds. It is the exactly that very tight grasp, though, that will
force an ever increasing portion of their subjects to escape to fulfill
their needs. ICANN can either lead the way as it was supposed to do, or
get left behind with a few grains of sand in their tight grasp and their
once controlled empire scattered all around them, running free.<br><br>
<dd>Sincerely,
<dd>Karl E. Peters, President
<dd>Top--Level Domain Association, Inc.<br><br>
</dl><br>
Thank you <br>
-- <br>
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<br>
<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy">
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy</a><br>
<a href="http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/</a><br>
<a href="http://twitter.com/isocchennai">
http://twitter.com/isocchennai</a><br>
<dl>
<dl>
<dd>-------- Original Message --------
<dd>Subject: Re: [governance] The End of the Internet in 2012?
<dd>From: "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy"
<<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>>
<dd>Date: Thu, December 18, 2008 11:52 am
<dd>To:
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>,
"Fouad Bajwa"
<<a href="mailto:fouadbajwa@gmail.com">fouadbajwa@gmail.com</a>><br>
<dd>Hello Fouad Bajwa,<br>
<br>
<dd>It is an interesting article that explains in plain language how the
big bandwidth providers are taking the Internet closer to the cable
subscription model. Todd Lammle draws an analogy of how the free
television progressed (or commercially degenerated) to an expensive
subscription model. I recall an IGF workshop where Virginia talked the
commercial compulsions on the user forcing the user to subscribe to 96
unwanted channels in order to get the four channels that he or she really
wants to watch. <br>
<dd>These are narrow business models, we as television viewers were
bought into such models even before we realized what was happening. But
on the Internet this may not really happen because we are all a little
more experienced and educated now. <br>
<dd>What sets the Internet apart is the way the user is increasingly
becoming a formal part of the policy making process, The user is not
going to be taken in unawares any longer. There are moves by the telcos
and other bandwidth providers to reshape the Internet into one with
unfair business models, but I don't feel that it is going to be easy for
these interests to achieve what they want.<br>
<dd>If such efforts persist and if the user is left with a sitation where
there are no options or with a few unpleasant options, the user would not
take it this time submissively. The unpleasant outcome for business may
not manifest as NEO Internetworks providing pirated access - that may not
happen given the present trends towards technologies and policies for
greater security. What is likely to emerge is a user owned, alternate
network(s) on social enterprise models that is (are) well
inter-connected, more open, more legitimate and even more deeply rooted
in the fundamental internet values. <br>
<dd>There are business models, well within the present framework for
neutral and affodable access, that could keep the bandwidth providers
flourishing. Instead of focusing on such broader business models, some
business interests lobby and even clandestinely work towards narrower
business models, but on the Internet any progress by such business
interests would be suicidal. <br>
<dd>Same can be said of Government policies that are unbalanced. What
happens when one Government tries to maintain some form of supremacy? Is
that working with China? Beginning with China a few other nationas could
fully or partially protest and that could lead to fragmentation of the
Internet which would lead to a totally opposite outcome : rather than
enhancing a nation's hold, it would end up totally breaking the Internet
away from any possibility of any further benevolent influence.<br><br>
<dd>It is not in the commerical interest of business coporations to work
towards a cable-like model and it is not in the interest of Governments
to seek to maintain an unbalanced form of control.<br>
<dd>Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
<dd>India.<br>
<dd>On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Fouad Bajwa
<<a href="mailto:fouadbajwa@gmail.com">fouadbajwa@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:
<dl>
<dd>An interesting article that has provoked me to even write a book on
<dd>the subject. What I see here is the emergence of Local or NEOn e
<dd>Internetworks or basically Internet NEO-Clans that will be providing
<dd>pirated or hacked access to consumers that will not be able to
afford
<dd>the huge charges imposed by corporations?:<br>
<dd>The End of the Internet by 2012?<br>
<dd>by Todd Lemmle
<a href="http://www.lammle.com/blog/news-and-announcements/22/the-end-of-the-internet-by-2012/">
http://www.lammle.com/blog/news-and-announcements/22/the-end-of-the-internet-by-2012/</a>
<dd>C<br><br>
</dl>
<dd>user is driven against a wall, the adverse outcome may not really be
the emegence of NEO clans providing hacked access, but rather an <br>
<dd>On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Fouad Bajwa
<<a href="mailto:fouadbajwa@gmail.com">fouadbajwa@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:
<dl>
<dd>An interesting article that has provoked me to even write a book on
<dd>the subject. What I see here is the emergence of Local or NEOn e
<dd>Internetworks or basically Internet NEO-Clans that will be providing
<dd>pirated or hacked access to consumers that will not be able to
afford
<dd>the huge charges imposed by corporations?:<br>
<dd>The End of the Internet by 2012?<br>
<dd>by Todd Lemmle
<a href="http://www.lammle.com/blog/news-and-announcements/22/the-end-of-the-internet-by-2012/">
http://www.lammle.com/blog/news-and-announcements/22/the-end-of-the-internet-by-2012/</a>
<br>
<br>
<dd>--<br>
<dd>Regards.
<dd>--------------------------
<dd>Fouad Bajwa
<dd>____________________________________________________________
<dd>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<dd>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<dd>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<dd>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<dd>For all list information and functions, see:
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
</dl>
<dd>--
<dd>Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
<dd><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy">
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy</a>
<dd><a href="http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/</a>
<dd><a href="http://twitter.com/isocchennai">
http://twitter.com/isocchennai</a><br><br>
<hr>
<dd>____________________________________________________________
<dd>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<dd><a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">
governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<dd>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<dd><a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<dd>For all list information and functions, see:
<dd><a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br><br>
</dl>
</dl><br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<br><br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a></blockquote></body>
</html>