<html>
<body>
At 23:37 01/09/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">JFC Morfin
<jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:<br>
> > Definition: Internet governance is the
development and<br>
> > application of shared principles, norms, rules,
decision-making<br>
> > procedures, and programmes that shape the of the<br>
> > Internet.<br>
> <br>
> IMHO you are missing the governance's true role which is neither the
<br>
> use (this is the short term operance's mission) nor the care of the
<br>
> evolution (that is concertance long term architectonic <br>
> responsibility), but the mid-term management of the
internet.<br><br>
My perception of the Internet is similar to WGIG's in that I see <br>
the Internet getting used and evolving, but I don't see it being<br>
subject to management.<br><br>
In my opinion that lack of management is a feature: The Internet<br>
has been designed for not requiring centralized
management.</blockquote><br>
I fear that confusion here is to speak of different things but with the
same words. <br><br>
The word "internet" is not registered but what one commonly
calls the internet is being documented by IETF RFCs. Therefore, for the
sake of clarity, I use the IETF wording. This wording was established in
RFC 3935, which defines the internet and the mission of the IETF
<b>(</b><i>"to make the Internet work better"</i>). This is to
be achieved in producing <i>"high quality, relevant technical and
engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and
manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better.
These documents include protocol standards, best current practices, and
informational documents of various kinds."<br><br>
</i>It is from this definition created by the internet builders that one
learns that there are three internet stewardship layers that involve its
operational use (or short-term oriented societal operance), the way it is
managed (or mid-term responsible political governance), and what concerns
its architectontical design (its long-term concordance with people’s
expectations, world digital ecosystem integration, and architectonical
evolution), plus the proper adminance of this stewardship. <br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>This is not to be confused with the constitution
being politically adopted or imposed in these four areas. Diktyology (the
scientific discipline of networking, from "diktyos" network)
teaches that there are constraints related to the size of a network. RFC
3439 documents this in the case of the Internet, which is accepted as
being a very large system. Such systems MUST be based upon the principle
of simplicity (RFC 3439 - there are very few other principles that make
the Internet a success: robustness [RFC 1122], constant change [RFC
1958]). <br><br>
Simplicity does not fit with centralization. The last principle that we
identified to be inherent to the success of the internet (through the
work of the WG/IDNAbis on IDNA2008) is the principle of subsidiarity as
illustrated by RFC 5985 that actually opposes the rigidity of any form of
centralization. However, this still needs to be fully documented and
consensually approved. There also is the need for a principle of digital
precaution to be worked on, as well as on the architectonic aspects of
the 31<sup>st</sup> article of Human Rights. This is where the IGF is
non-productive. RFC4Ds were supposed to be produced as societal best
practices of the Internet. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> What is discussed when
talking of the "death of the internet" are two <br>
> changes of paradigm.<br><br>
Talking of the "death of the internet" is actually pretty
ridiculous<br>
IMO. Among the plausible interpretations of what is going on, the<br>
most dramatic would be that some paradigms of Internet governance<br>
could be going through a foundational crisis from which some of them<br>
might emerge either rejuvenated or dead. Furthermore, some people's<br>
trust in some or all of the endorsers of the “OpenStand” declaration<br>
may have died.</blockquote><br>
This is an extreme but very interesting idea. <br>
Since the OpenStand signatories and endorsers represent what makes
the internet and data processing today world (except ICANN and Unicode),
could you please be a little bit more explicit?<br><br>
In addition, if those (IEEE, ISOC, IAB, IETF, W3C, RIRs) are dead – their
internet is necessarily gone with them, unless some other organizations
have taken over? <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">But the Internet itself is
certainly alive and well.</blockquote><br>
Since your position is certainly consistent, you need to give a
definition of that internet. <br><br>
As far as I am concerned, I retain my 1978 definition of the
INTERnational NETwork (actually the "Intlnet") and
differentiate it in accepting the US/ARPA/IETF vision as discussed by the
RFC 3935 from different points of view.
<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki/IUWW_-_RFC_3935#4.__Issues_with_Scoping_the_IETF.27s_Mission">
http://iucg.org/wiki/IUWW_-_RFC_3935#4.__Issues_with_Scoping_the_IETF.27s_Mission</a>
.<br><br>
I also know that there is a restricted vision by ICANN, of which I do not
share as I see it as far too restrictive. And a still undefined generic
one that I promote as OpenUse.<br><br>
What is definitely dead, as the Snowden case makes clear, is that the
"internet" is a top technical and democratic achievement. This
will be the case until we make what we unformally pioneer emerge,
i.e. the "intersem", the structurally multicratic semiotic
internet “of thoughts”, with "everyone his/her prism on his/her
universe".<br><br>
Today, our main concern is to adapt the information society operance,
governance, and concordance to this reality. And to start with a correct
assessment of what this currently reality istoday. That is because it
changes every day. And these changes have impacts. The Tunis time
information society is now technically outdated.<br><br>
Today, the reality is the "singularity" of which many
"prophets" (starting with John Von Neumann) have had the
premonition, we have to understand and match that reality. This is not
science fiction or "1984" or a soul in a robot. It is a reality
that we have to live and govern with. Something already constitutionally
acknowledged, at least in France for 10 years, in part in the European
fundamental documents, and implicitely but definitely in the internet
"constitution" (code is law) from its very inception.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> >
Note: Governments, civil society and the private sector are all<br>
> > involved in Internet governance in various
roles.<br>
> <br>
> You are missing International organizations in the 4-lateral
MSist<br>
> governance.<br><br>
If the role of international organizations is to facilitate
discussion<br>
and coordination among governments in regard to their roles in<br>
Internet governance, with opportunities for members of other<br>
stakeholder groups to participate in the discussions, why should<br>
“international organizations” be listed explicitly any more than say<br>
the IGC which has such a role for civil society? </blockquote><br>
From this answer of yours I infer that you deny International
organizations a structural main importance in the information society.
This is an interesting position. <br><br>
Some want to introduce a 5th category, being technologies and academics,
and you want to reduce the categories to three. The interest of such a
position is that it carves the Westphalian nation state concept into
marble forever. We started building the Internet internationally when
telecommunications were state monopolies, each protected in its own
nation state with a keep, bailey, barbican (the US still has their
barb-ICANN), and moat. The development of WIPO, WTO, UNESCO, ISO, ITU,
and all the NGOs have open the international context and conducted to the
emerging Society-States that the Information Society wants to get people
centered. I doubt we can go back now.<br><br>
Anyway, if you deny international organizations to be a stakeholder
category, where do you locate the IGF?<br><br>
I know you want to update the Tunis agenda, but this last point seems
like a big update, no?<br>
Best,<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>