<html>
<body>
At 17:25 18/03/2011, Roland Perry wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">In message
<7.0.1.0.2.20110318161534.05ed5838@jefsey.com>, at 16:36:49 on Fri,
18 Mar 2011, JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> remarked:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">All the discussed engineering is
related to network operance tricks or rules. Governance is concerned with
the architectural laws.</blockquote><br>
There's also the laws of Physics.</blockquote><br>
Architectural laws belongs to them. Actually operance is the trick, rule
and contract stratum. Governance is the law (scientific and politic)
stratum. Adminance is the constitutional stratum, i.e. in the digital
ecosystem the principles, the code and civilization. Principles are
(as identified): permanent change (RFC 1958), simplicity (RFC 3439) and
subsidiarity (IDNA2008). Code is the past that present uses and that
permit possible. Civilization is what we commonly want to achieve: the
WSIS told it: a "people centered, à charactèe humain, centrada en la
persona" digital society.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Architecturally, network
neutrality is simple to define and test: it is when the quality of the
end to end relation stays unaffected by the change of the operators of
the intermediate network elements. This is why network neutrality will
result from IUse generated competition among ISP, permitted by IUI ISP
rotation.</blockquote></blockquote><br>
If we want to be pertinent on particulars we need to understand better
the Internet: principles, codes and civilization, in order not to confuse
what belongs to what. The most recent introduced issue is subsidiarity.
It took time to get it swallowed and it will take time to get it
digested. There are two principles that accompany it that have not even
an English translation yet. The first is the principle of suppleance: how
the ecosystem is to structurally respect the principe of subsidiarity
when subsidiairity fails somewhere (please note that supplance is not
solidarity which is a patch in a catastrophic situation). The second is
what the whole network history taught us: it is the progressive
subsidiarity which goes from centralization to subsidiarity via
uncouplings that we name "layers" in the OSI model. (In
addition we now need to learn about intricated networks,as we progress
towards the WSIS target).<br><br>
Once we will have well accomodated these notions enought (and this is a
real new important effort for the mankind's noetic) we will probably
understand at least three levels of response to your question:
<ul>
<li>does the technology make it possible ? If yes apply (operance) the
rule I gave you to test the proposed solutions (architecture is the judge
of good engineering, not engineering).
<li>if not organize the political law (governance) to address the
management of the shortage.
<li>and confer with the involved parties to subsidise a research that
could make it technically possible (adminance).
</ul>The responses do not come from messing the problem and saying we
want the impossible, but to try to solve the problems and sorting them to
address them one issue at a time. <br>
jfc<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">If you were on an island with a
2 Megabit leased line, and had ten people wanting to stream BBC iPlayer
at 1 Megabit each [which they naturally feel is possible because each of
them only wants half the supplied bandwidth], what architecturally
network neutral solution would you propose?<br><br>
(Assume you'd asked if they wanted to pay 10x the monthly fee, and they
all said "no").</blockquote><br>
The problem is not with the Internet, but with the BBC and its commercial
motivations to broadcast at 1 megabit for various merchant reasons
instead of better quality at 0.1 Megabit. So, neutrality is first to make
sure that IUse neutral solutions (we are out of the network, i.e. fringe
to fringe) do not exist, that permit better quality stream broadcast
requiring 0.1 Megabit do not exist, that obviously could be possible, but
out of BBC (and Apple) commercial control and benefits. This is why we
are to be careful about the difference between the network neutrality
bound to the Internet legacy and the current merchandisation strategies,
and the intrinsic brain to brain digital ecosystem neutrality various
middle strata. At each stratum the architectural law is the same, but the
scope is different. <br><br>
If you really want to dig into the roots of the Internet neutrality, I
suggest you read the begining of the RFC 3869 where the IAB explains
where the lack of neutrality comes from.... something which accuses its
now ISOC owner, and the civil society which does not oppose it. One must
oppose and propose at the root.<br><br>
Best.<br><br>
BTW, is not Britain an Island? <br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">-- <br>
Roland Perry<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>
For all other 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><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>
Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" eudora="autourl">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>