<html>
<body>
Dear Parminder, Milton,<br><br>
The confusion about "public" is with us for even longer
(mid-70s) than about "free" and FLOSS. At that time we had in
addition the general State monopoloy situation. This is why we always
used the technical words (1) "public" (like "public
domain") for something of equal public legally protected access, (2)
monopoly when it belongs to a State or de facto private market monopoly,
and (3) "regalian" when it belongs to State or other Common
Interest Adminstration. These terms are those being listed by the
Internet Polynym Glossary project.<br><br>
The following terms are also used for the seven poles of governance : (1)
regalian domain, (2) civil society, (3) private sector, (4) international
institutions, (5) standardisation and documentation organisations
[SDOs], (6) consumers associations, and (7) cultural, research and
accademics.spheres.<br><br>
At 14:07 27/12/2008, Parminder wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2 color="#000080">
>The STANDARDS are open and nonproprietary, but they are useful only
because they allow any and all private networks and privately owned
equipment to be interconnected. <br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#000080"><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">Any public system - roads,
infrastructure of the market, laws, etc - are useful only because they
facilitate private individuals. Everyone knows that. This does not
obliterate the difference between the public and the private, does
it!</font></blockquote><br>
I call your attention here. To be open and freely usable (what does not
mean not-proprietary) is a good thing for a standard; but the first
qualities are to be efficient and non-biased.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2 color="#000080">
>However, because the TCP/IP protocol suite’s ability to connect
networks initially outstripped the understanding and capacity of
governments to regulate.... and the understanding and the capacity of the
corporates to appropriate one could say that its effect was more
libertarian than egalitarian. But its uniform, open nature did indeed
level the playing field and afford those interested in communicating more
equal rights than they have ever had before.</font></blockquote><br>
I authorised TCP/IP on the public international monopoly network in 1984
(technical support was agreed with DoD end of 1983). It was
regulated/protected as any other protocols. One should not confuse the
general technical development of datacommunications with any political
change. Exotic protocols where more a problem than anything else. From my
involved experience political changes in bandwidth usage resulted
from three things: better political understanding of transborder
dataflows issues, OSI model analysis (with the still remaining problems
of the three TCP/IP missing layers), and an adequate and consensual UIT
collegium tarif response to the web needs.<br><br>
I observed and still observe a constant decrease in the right to
comunicate. It started with less capacity due to a much smaller
bandwidth, itself due to a much smaller demand, itself due to an only
emergent proposition. Actually constraints such as the DNS root
limitations and address allocation limitations do not belong to the
International public data networks, but to the US attempt to control the
management of its TCP/IP portion and to extend it. <br><br>
If we want to be serious about discussing the real Internet (the
International public Network) and, more importantly, the Intersem (as the
International Semantic and Multilingual relation and services [such as
RFIDs] facilitation continuity) we must clearly identify what we talk
about: which technology [IPv4/IPv6 for example], which strata [flow,
content, meaning], etc. and which barriers and constraints to remove. The
first ones, IMHO, are the Technical Barrier to Trade, Relations and Minds
imposed by the lack of evolution of the IETF architecture and the delay
in organising structural and operational Enhanced Cooperations (keeping
us with the Legacy Internet).<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">This is interesting. You say that the
socio-political impact of the Internet was incidental. Fine, I may accept
that, but you also seem to be non-committal about how it should be,
hereon. Don't you want the Internet to have any (socio-political)
directions and purpose. If you do want to it to have any, would you
please state it. The whole debate is about that. That is what we all are
where about.</font><font size=2 color="#000080"><br><br>
>more libertarian than egalitarian.<br><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">Now, this is fair turf. This
is really what we are discussing, the above was mostly avoidable
red-herring. (Though the term 'libertarian' is used by so many different
types, that it often confuses me. I understand you are professing views
more of what may be called as right-libertarian kind. Please correct me
if I am wrong, in India we are still not very used to these terms). Since
we want to keep our discussion practical, and purposeful, I think a very
good instantiation of the above political difference is in our views on
network neutrality. Will discuss in another email.
</font></blockquote><br>
IMHO the question is to be concurrently addressed at least at network
topology, governance and usage layers. I can have totally libertarian
topology, censoring politcy, and limited usage due to access
costs.<br><br>
I must say, I am always embarassed about ideological comments on
artefacts which have not been produced along any ethitechnic, i.e. with
an ethical teleology. For example: PGP has been designed with an ethical
purpose in mind (to permit civil right people to freely communicate). -
This is why all I expect from my mobile is not to be democratic but to
work better.<br><br>
jfc </body>
</html>