<html>
<body>
At 16:36 02/09/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> In addition, if those
(IEEE, ISOC, IAB, IETF, W3C, RIRs) are dead –<br><br>
I didn't call them dead, I only wrote that some people might, on the<br>
basis of OpenStand's unbalanced market oriented focus, have stopped<br>
trusting them.</blockquote><br>
I was not refereeing to you as such, but rather to the idea that you
partly endorsed this and I found that interesting. I personally find RFC
6852 to be a very good thing as it clarifies an ambiguity. The problem is
that it does not propose a way to consensually fill the fundamental
vacuum it creates. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> Since your position is
certainly consistent, you need to give a<br>
> definition of that internet.<br><br>
I personally distinguish between<br><br>
1) Internet in a narrow technical sense: The set of devices that are<br>
able to exchange Internet Protocol datagrams via the largest
connected<br>
component of Internet Protocol networks, together with all the
technical<br>
infrastructure that is dedicated to the purpose of enabling them to
do<br>
so.</blockquote><br>
OK. This is an IETF accepted extension. This is a TCP/IP network. This is
<u>software oriented</u>. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">2) Internet in a broader
technical sense: Short for “internetwork”, any<br>
set of interconnected autonomous packet switching
networks.</blockquote><br>
OK. This is the general legal definition. This is <u>hardware
oriented</u>. There is no protocol requirement. As such, the Intersem
(semiotic internet I am interested in, over the internet+) is a
continuation of the Internet. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">3) Internet as an information
and communication system: the global<br>
information and communication system that: (i) is logically linked<br>
together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet<br>
Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons; (ii) is able
to<br>
support communications using the Transmission Control
Protocol/Internet<br>
Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons,
and/or<br>
other IP-compatible protocols; and (iii) provides, uses or makes<br>
accessible, either publicly or privately, high level services
layered<br>
on the communications and related infrastructure described herein.<br>
(This is slightly modified from a definition adopted in 1995 by the
US<br>
Federal Networking Council)</blockquote><br><br>
This is (my feeling) THE main problem that we face. The reason is clearly
indicated: it was "adopted" (not a natural description) by a
Federal (US) council.<br><br>
The whole contention about the internet is that people refer to the legal
(2) definition and users to the operational (1) definition, while US
politics and reps (in every area) refer themselves to this (3)
definition. This is <u>US oriented</u>.<br><br>
Beware! The US for me does not mean USG, but the whole set of US
interests in internet leadership/dominance related to industries, majors,
defense, Gov, etc. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">4) Internet in the full systemic
sense: All of the above together with<br>
the social and economic phenomena that drive the uses of that<br>
information and communication system or systems, and that shape how<br>
it's all evolving.</blockquote><br>
This is quite ambiguous to me when discussing agreements and
organizations. This is totally different from other definitions because
it is <u>human included</u> and has nothing to do (except circumstantial
constraints) with IP. In our old (late 1970s) language, it is
<u>brainware oriented</u>.<br><br>
Everything as in (1) and (3) depends on IP. In that case, using the
Internet Eco-System (IES) is more precise. Actually, in the day to day
life digisphere (which includes that (4) definition of the internet) is
probably more precise.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> From this answer of yours I
infer that you deny International<br>
> organizations a structural main importance in the information<br>
> society. This is an interesting position.<br><br>
No I just didn't want to make the assertion that they currently have
a<br>
significant specific and distinct role in Internet governance.<br><br>
Currently the list of actors with such a distinct role is IMO:<br>
Governments, civil society, private sector, standardization<br>
organizations, specialized Internet governance
institutions.</blockquote><br>
"standardization organizations, specialized Internet governance
institutions" are international organizations. They are
authoritative and act by joint subsidiarity. What about the UN, WIP, WTO,
Doctors Without Borders, Religions, consumer organizations, Interpol,
etc. This includes the mafias which indirectly have an enormous impact
(spam, security, technology transition precautions required)? <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Maybe at some point in the
future one or more international<br>
organizations will take on significant specific roles in the field
of<br>
Internet governance that are significantly distinct from their
current<br>
role of coordinating actions of governments. Then I will update my
list<br>
to reflect the new reality.</blockquote><br>
Officially they should coordinate the joint delegated actions of
governments. The lapsus calami is interesting as they also do coordinate
the actions of small governments under the influence of large
governments. This is the problem with cyber-sovereignty. The
international internet importance of an IP address does not reflect the
power of the country behind it, but rather the interest and reliability
of the service provided to the usership.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Huh? There are a lot of things
that I want to do (more than I could<br>
possibly find time for), but updating the Tunis agenda is not one of<br>
them. I may have implied that I don't feel a need for my thinking to<br>
be stuck in the precise wording of the Tunis Agenda, but as an<br>
international softlaw instrument, I don't see any particular need
for<br>
the Tunis Agenda to be updated.</blockquote><br>
I see. You are OK with a fuzzy reading of the Tunis agreement. My problem
with that is that people started reading it this way, instead of reading
it as a precise, non-fuzzy, but dynamic document. Therefore, the more we
go, the less we agree. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> but this last point seems
like a big update, no?<br><br>
In the “working definition of Internet governance”, the Tunis Agenda<br>
lists three stakeholder categories as having roles in Internet<br>
governance: Governments, private sector, civil society.</blockquote><br>
29. We reaffirm the principles enunciated in the Geneva phase of the
WSIS, in December 2003, that the Internet has evolved into a global
facility available to the public and its governance should constitute a
core issue of the Information Society agenda. The international
management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and
democratic, with the full involvement of <u>governments</u>, the
<u>private sector</u>, <u>civil society</u> and <u>international
organizations</u>. It should ensure an equitable distribution of
resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure
functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism.
<br><br>
33. We take note of the WGIG’s report that has endeavoured to develop a
working definition of Internet governance. It has helped identify a
number of public policy issues that are relevant to Internet governance.
The report has also enhanced our understanding of the respective roles
and responsibilities of <u>governments</u>, <u>intergovernmental and
international organizations</u> and other forums as well as the
<u>private sector</u> and <u>civil society</u> from both developing and
developed countries. <br><br>
35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both
technical and public policy issues and should involve <u>all
stakeholders</u> and relevant <u>intergovernmental and international
organizations</u>. In this respect it is recognized that:<br><br>
- Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the
sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for
international Internet-related public policy issues. <br>
- The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important
role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and
economic fields.<br>
- Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters,
especially at community level, and should continue to play such a
role.<br>
- Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have,
a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy
issues.<br>
- International organizations have also had and should continue to have
an important role in the development of Internet-related technical
standards and relevant policies.<br><br>
52. In order to ensure effective participation in <u>global Internet
governance</u>, we urge <u>international organizations</u>, including
intergovernmental organizations, where relevant, to ensure that all
stakeholders, particularly from developing countries, have the
opportunity to participate in policy decision-making relating to Internet
governance, and to promote and facilitate such participation. <br><br>
73. The Internet Governance Forum, in its working and function, will be
multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent. To that end,
the proposed IGF could:<br>
- Build on the existing structures of Internet governance, with special
emphasis on the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in this
process –governments, business entities, civil society and
intergovernmental organizations. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">There is a significant trend
towards recognizing “technical community”<br>
as a fourth stakeholder category. I don't see this as having a<br>
convincing justification however, and I believe that the
introduction<br>
this additional stakeholder category has not been particularly
helpful,</blockquote><br>
36. We recognize the valuable contribution by the <u>academic and
technical communities</u> <b>within </b>those <u>stakeholder groups</u>
mentioned in paragraph 35 to the evolution, functioning and development
of the Internet. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">and that it would be better for
technical community people to engage as<br>
part of either “government” (those who participate in an official,<br>
government-endorsed role) or “civil society” (those who have ensured<br>
their independence from government interests and from business<br>
interests that relate to the topics that they're engaging on) or<br>
“private sector” (those representing a company with the ability to<br>
be a change agent in ways directly related to the topics under<br>
discussion), or “no clear stakeholder category affiliation” (all<br>
others), and list “technical community” membership as being on a<br>
different dimension, similar to how someone with expertise in<br>
international law might list being a member of that community as a<br>
qualification rather than as a stakeholder group
affiliation.</blockquote><br>
Subsequent to a clarification IRT the Tunis agenda regarding
international organizations we are in full agreement.<br><br>
The disagreement might result from the point:<br><br>
<b>34. "</b>A working definition of Internet governance is the
development and application by governments, the private sector and civil
society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules,
decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and
use of the Internet." <br><br>
I note that:<br>
- this is proposed as a possible (might)<br>
- working definition.<br><br>
My understanding is that the document uses the term "internet
governance" in two ways:<br>
- internet governance as the stewardship (I used to use "net
keeping")<br>
- global/international/broad internet governance as an organized
structure concerting the stewardship strategy (I used to use "the
net keepers").<br><br>
Further to my appeal IRT RFC 6852 there will be a need to propose how
OpenStand should be inserted in the IGF or how the IGF will consider
OpenStand. My intent would be to publish an RFC on the matter. Would you
be interested in teaming up on it? As an RFC4D it should at least be
published in English and French.<br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>Best,<br>
jfc<br>
</body>
</html>