<html>
<body>
At 10:57 29/08/2013, parminder wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font face="Verdana">For friends
more comfortable in Spanish, below is a Spanish translation of the
proposed joined statement and also enclosed.....
parminder</font></blockquote><br>
Thank you for this. Very helpful for some people in my surrounding.<br>
I send on this list too the comment I made on the cover letter of this
key contribution.<br>
<font face="Verdana">jfc<br><br>
----<br><br>
</font>Dear Parminder,<br><br>
I am very sorry, but this time I will disagree.<br><br>
1. "there is deep discomfort among almost all countries, other than
the US" is inappropriate if you do not define in MSist terms what is
a country. The sentence makes sense only if the meaning is not the same
(governement, or corporates, or people, or activists, or press, etc.) for
the US and for the other States. <br><br>
2. The internet is a public road. Some are walking on it, and others are
driving on it. This is ruled by the Internet Traffic code, which gathers
protocols, governance agreements, national statutes, regulations,
ordinances, and rules that have been adopted by the stakeholders and that
they can enforce. If you want to be a dominant in this game of the road,
you must start by building yourself a truck and start bumping some
bumpers. <br><br>
What I want to make clear is that the governance of the internet has
nothing to do with the data the internet transports, which users partner
together, and who goes to bed with who. I totally understand that you
feel betrayed in the picture that you have painted yourself of what the
internet should be. The internet is NOT and has never been a democratic
dream. It is an imperfect technology that everyone and every organization
may use the way he/she/it can. Snowden revealed nothing that we had
ignored, and nothing worse than what banks do, and that the press
publishes on people.<br><br>
The only thing you can do is:<br><br>
- either ethitechnically redesign parts of the digital technology for
simultaneously making it so that:<br>
- what you want costs far less/is safer, so that everyone
wants and uses it<br>
- what you dislike costs more to get once it is used by
everyone than the benefits one can obtain from it (like some did with the
IPv6 they disliked :-)) <br><br>
- or to get yourself strong enough to be able to deter those who do
things you dislike. Maybe you can call the AFL-CIO and discuss with the
UTU as to how to make it legal. Or the Majors.<br><br>
Making "the internet a vehicle for greater prosperity, fairness, and
social justice for all" is the elected politicians’ job. Our own job
is to decide which one to support and vote for, and give them ideas and
surely prove these ideas good.<br><br>
For the time being, I support “an Open-Prism for all”. Not just for the
NSA (NB: a technical note, tapping paid internet operators only means
that ARPA have not yet reached a top intellition technology. Once they
have it, they will infer private information from the available data and
help you correct your typos in your personal mails. There is nothing
which can be hidden, this is in the Gospel).<br><br>
Enjoy! We live in an exciting world ruled by a new paradigm, the
OpenStand RFC 6852 paradigm. <br>
If you want to know what is actually happening inside (and
not through) the internet:
<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki/OpenStand_context_vs._standardizing_IDNA2003">
http://iucg.org/wiki/OpenStand_context_vs._standardizing_IDNA2003</a>.
Commercial sponsors are again trying to control languages, and thereby
the people and cultures along the roadside. That is for real.<br><br>
Anyway, politicians and corporates love we spend time sending them
letters instead of working on people centered operational protocols.
<br><br>
Cheers!<br>
jfc<br><br>
</body>
</html>