<html>
<body>
Dear Members,<br><br>
I appealed the IESG and now the IAB concerning RFC 6852.
<a name="_GoBack"></a>You will find all the documentation on this appeal
and the related debate at
<a href="http://architf.org">http://architf.org</a>. The site is under
preparation, the mailing list is open.<br><br>
<br>
<b>Why this appeal?<br><br>
</b>My main point is that RFC 3935 had stated that the mission of IAB,
IETF, and IRTF were to influence those who design, use, and manage the
Internet in a way so that <u>it works better</u>. This was an absolute
target and, therefore, an architectonic target (belonging to the
construction of the world, in this case of the digisphere). RFC 6852
changes that. The IABn IETF, IEEE, W3C and ISOC standardization paradigm
is market economy related. <br><br>
This is not bad news. It could could foster some more innovations.
However, it is a relative target.<br>
No replacement is provided at the top layer of our concerns : we do we
digitally want?. This is just not considered as long as all of us keep
happily purchasing.<br><br>
<br>
<b>Risk of radical monopoly<br><br>
</b>This means that we run into the risk of organizing a <u>radical
monopoly</u> if it is not encapsulated within an adequate multiconsensual
framework where the top layers’ concerns are addressed in a current,
appropriate way (actually before RFC 6852 only a few had identified the
risk resulting from the fact thath the first human made
"universal" [like cosmos, life, etc.] had no plan. No one in
the cockpit: implicitly everyone thought that the IAB wise men were in
control. Actually, they are not). <br><br>
According to Wikipedia, a <u>radical monopoly</u> (Ivan Illich) results
from the dominance of one type of product rather than the dominance of
one brand. One speaks about a radical monopoly when one industrial
production process exercises exclusive control over the satisfaction of a
pressing need, and <u>excludes nonindustrial activities</u> from
competition.<br><br>
At this stage, RFC 6852 calls on the inclusion of every SDO (technical
standardization organizations). If we were to forget the regalian domain,
civil society, and international organizations‘ and others stakeholders'
normative rights, the monopoly over the digital global commons and global
ecosystem stewardship would progressively drift toward the members of the
"OpenStand" agreement (the text of RFC 6852).
(<a href="http://open-stand.org/">http://open-stand.org</a>).
Exclusively, the industry and the engineers.<br><br>
<br>
<b>My Civil Society open proposition<br><br>
</b>My Civil Society based proposition is for an "NDO" (norms
documentation organization) <u>open debate</u> on the way to address the
main question: “what is the digital world that we want and how do
we manage to control what we will get?”.<br><br>
Why do I speak of norms and not of standards or agreements? This is the
confusion from which we suffer. Norms describe what we have or want.
Standards describe how we want to obtain it. Agreement are over the way
we use what we got. The digisphere is made of several architectures in
different areas in order to address a large diversity of needs. The
debate that I am calling for is to discuss the normative esthetic that we
want for it.<br><br>
- The WSIS stated that it had to be people centered. <br>
- RFC 6852 states that it has to consider market economics.<br>
- My personal goal is for everything to work better for everyone.
<br><br>
<br>
<b>My goal is not a dream<br><br>
</b>This is not a dream; it is a different layer that humanity has never
had to consider before. Up to now, from ancient Greece, politicians were
to manage the City and insure and protect its internal and external peace
through judiciary and military powers. Now, we have to be careful about
the way we build the City’s environment, so that we do not build a City
where people would face conflicts due to our past bugs. Like, for
example, with global warming. We have to consider the digital and
e-societal pollution that we may create.<br><br>
This kind of care results from the <b>precautionary principle</b>. It
states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm
to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_public">public</a>,
to the
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment">environment</a>
, or to the <u>future</u>, in the absence of
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus">scientific
and political consensus</a> that the action or policy is harmful, the
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof">burden of
proof</a> that it is <i><u>not</u></i> harmful falls on those taking an
act. In Europe, this is a constitutional duty (Lisbon Treaty) together
with the <u>duty to undertake preventive action</u>, in which
rectification at the source is a priority and that the origin of the harm
should pay. It was crafted for the natural environment, but in France at
least, as a part of the constitutional block, its spirit applies to every
law and obviously applies also to the artificial cyberspace environment.
<br><br>
<br>
<b>A foreseen human step ahead<br><br>
</b>Because this is new, and we have never had architectonical duties
aside from the human, political, judiciary, and military duties, we have
to invent a process together. It is to involve Governments, International
organizations, private sector, and Civil Society members. Moreover, we
have to be aware that if the needs come from technology, as an active
aisle of human development, it concerns everything and everyone:
constitutions, economy, money, cultures, sovereignty, etc.<br><br>
We have known and tried to delay its implications, from the very
beginning, from Dr. Lessig’s famous "Code is law": "In a
critical sense, we Americans are not democrats anymore. Cyberspace has
shown us this, our passivity in the face of its change confirms this.
Both should push us to figure out why." <br><br>
That we are not democrats anymore is true for all of us, and not only due
to our passivity. Networking permits a complex society, i.e. a society
where <u>dialogue</u> (two people) and <u>dialectic</u> (two ideas for a
synthesis) are replaced by <u>multilogue</u> (many people with many
people, extending the familial “polylogue”) and <u>polylectic</u> (many
ideas, messages, and information collapsing together). We have entered
into polycracy. <br><br>
<br>
<b>This step ahead is necessary<br><br>
</b>And, remember, the top layer of our global polycratic process has no
dedicated structure or doctrine. <br><br>
All this is because architectures lead us. Richard Fuller said “In order
to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the
problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete”:
this is why RFC 6852 is adequate in documenting a new paradigm for the
making of an architecture. This is also why it now has to be completed
and given a framework for telling the way our new architectures'
esthetics are to be decided. This way we will be able to agree on the
ethics to respect in order to technically best implement the consensually
desired esthetics. In this process, the role of the multiple stakeholders
(people, users, politicians, lawyers, strategists) is not to replace the
engineers in designing their machines but rather to inform them of their
consensual requirements and guidance.<br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>You will find all the documentation on this appeal
and the related debate at
<a href="http://architf.org">http://architf.org</a>.<br><br>
jfc</body>
</html>