<html>
<body>
At 03:51 20/09/2013, John Day wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Before I reply, may I ask:<br>
What is this list? Why did I get this?<br>
What is PS, CS, and CCI?</blockquote><br>
Hi John,<br><br>
The
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a> list is a civil society
oriented discussion. I copied you because the open general debate that I
engaged there, and in several other places, including through an IETF/IAB
appeal that is now at the ISOC level, is architectonic, i.e. dealing with
the fundamentals of the kind of human/digital society that we want and,
as a result, the kind of digital architectures we need, and the technical
ethics that we need to adopt in order to obtain and protect them.
<br><br>
Initiating that debate seems to boil down to three different frameworks
that are to be associated.<br><br>
<b>1. The ARPANET/Internet unfinished networks vision.</b> <br><br>
It is now questioned, which is due to the Snowden avalanche effect. Vint
Cerf has documented that NSA influenced the design of TCP/IP. People are
also starting to understand that this is not because you have the sources
of the code that you know what the architecture and design may permit.
<br><br>
This vision has been socially embodied by ISOC and technically by IETF
and IAB. IAB had complained (RFC 3869) about the risk of undue influence
of the private sector sponsors on the technology and called for the
technology neutral financing of the Governments and non-commercial
interests. Now, IAB (in RFC 6852) seems to have executed a U-turn
associating IEEE, ISOC (and IETF/IAB), and W3C into a market oriented
standardization paradigm with public comment period but no apeal
capacity. This can also be understood as a private sector move towards a
radical monopoly of the TCP/IP area or a protection against the influence
of government agencies, tryng to e-colonize cultures through technologies
(cf. WTO ITA current ojections in Geneva). It is often understood as a
“statUS-quo” dead-end consolidation attempt that might lead the internet
and its US industry to an implosion leaving it to a grassroots and/or
Asian innovative alternatives at a cost for all.<br><br>
<b>2. The ongoing World Summit on the Information Society.<br><br>
</b>It is particularly interested in the internet, as being its main
digital network system that it interfaces through the IGF (Internet
Governance Forum) has internationally consensually agreed on a digital
esthetic in calling for a "people centered information society"
and on an ethic to build it: an enhanced cooperation between four
multistakeholder groups gathering the governments (public or regalian
domain), civil society (abbreviated to CS), business or private sector
(abbreviated to PS, of which the CCI, International Chamber of Commerce
is a leading party), and international organizations (UN, ITU, WTO, WIPO,
UNESCO, ISO, etc.). This enhanced cooperation is to be explored,
discussed, and advised by dynamic coalitions.<br><br>
<b>3. A fundamental scientific attempt<br><br>
</b>There is a growing effort to take advantage from the accumulated
architectural, technical, societal, social, legal, political, and
pragmatic experience in order to better understand a new academic field
and its constitutional, architectonical, and technological implications
for all of us that we can call “diktyological”, from Greek
"diktyo" network and "diktyos" reticulate (A
diktyologie is a networked ontology).<br><br>
In this debate, which extends to the NSA case, the big data use for
algorithmic governance, evolution of cyber-sovereignty and of the Nation
State concepts, cyberwar laws and doctrines, etc. are included. <br><br>
My personal open approach is oriented toward an agoric model that is
based on the experience I have gained from international network initial
deployment under the Tymnet service oriented technology and concepts.
<br><br>
I would be very interested in your “seven questions” and more – and in
your responses/comments. <br><br>
I, likewise, am trying along with Michel to tap into the return of the
OSI experience from the very beginning...in order to avoid
<b>"skipping steps".<br><br>
</b>My intent in copying you was not so much for you to answer the mail,
but rather to be aware of this effort and to correct the historical
errors that my certainly simplified reading of what was done and what was
not understood might lead to. Trying our best does not gurantee the best
results :-) <br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>Best,<br>
jfc<br>
facilitator <a href="mailto:iucg@ietf.org">iucg@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki" eudora="autourl">http://iucg.org/wiki<br>
</a><a href="http://iutf.org/wiki">http://iutf.org/wiki</a><br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">At 2:29 AM +0200 9/20/13, jfcm
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">At 09:26 19/09/2013, Jean-Louis
FULLSACK wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">We all togethe also should keep
in mind that the PS is speaking una voce through the CCI leadership, and
-last but not least- is largely present and influential in the ITU
through its ITU Sector membership. IMO this stresses the necessity to be
very cautious about the possible osmosis betwenn CS and PS which is
detrimental to the CS in any case. Therefore I fully agree with Michael
Gurstein upon the principle : Verify then trust! </blockquote><br>
Hi! Jean-Louis,<br><br>
You are right! However ... I will not even buy that. Too dangerous when
you consider Antoinette's pet issue: algorithmic governance.<br>
Let me I explain why. Louis Pouzin is on the list, I copy Michel Elie and
John Day, so they may correct the way I rewrite history.<br><br>
<br>
<b>Two quotes<br><br>
</b>Ken Thomson, quoted by Karl Auerbach, shows us that this is not
possible because in the real world, verification can only be validated by
the final result, and after an infinite period of time. Welcome to the
chaotic determinism of our fractal world (at least 4D) reality.<br><br>
As Dominique quoted Vint Cerf yesterday: "NSA was involved in the
early development of the TCP/IP protocols and contributed in a number of
positive ways towards improved security".<br><br>
<br>
<b>Datagram History<br><br>
</b>Actually the architectonic decision was taken in 1972: in copying the
French model, ARPANET did not bother implementing the
"ratiocinating" French presentation layer (dealing with ...
security, encryption, languages, presentation [i.e. what the web does
only in parts], etc.): this purposely crippled architecture has indeed
positively simplified control and snooping. They pretended that they did
not have the resources to add layer 6 and everyone accepted that it would
simplify the evaluation of the fundamental transport and routing
functions in an experimental system. However, on January 1, 1981, when
the final internet architecture was implemented, OSI layer 6 was missing
and the DNS copy of the distributed "11" French equivalent
system for Minitel was centralized, with a logger (received by two of the
totally unnecessary so-called “root servers” that are solely NSA “log
collectors”) giving real time internal control data and external insights
that could be correlated with the world life.<br><br>
The same: further IETF considerations to adopt the OSI model and X.25
contributions were eventually deemed too complex and inadequate. I do not
claim that the OSI model was perfect, but it was far less easy to hack
and was nationally distributed (not balkanized).<br><br>
<b>InterNet<br><br>
</b>The same with the initial Tymnet protocol of the International
Network (InterNet as I differentiate it): packets were disassembled at
each node. Tapping the traffic was just technically impossible. What was
worse (this was my department), was that it supported active content
(what you receive is not what I sent, but what I wanted you to receive
modulo what you want to accept), a nightmare for big data algorithmic
governance and a prerequisite for subsidiary legislation.<br><br>
This is agoric architecture of Norm Hardy, Bill Kranz, Joe Rinde, etc. I
made its subsidiary support by the TCP/IP architecture examplified by RFC
5895 (without them noticing it: a proof that one can influence those
"whose mission is to produce 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" (RFC 3935).<br><br>
<br>
<b>Proof of trust<br><br>
</b>The only good reason why we could trust the technology is the
possibility to challenge its choices when we discover a flaw. Whatever
the reasons and/or the influences that inspired its removal, this is not
part of the new standardization paradigm. The digital standardization
intricacy consolidated by the OpenStand alliance does not consider the
possibility to force an architectural "bug" correction or to
impose a "roving bug feature". The appeal to ISOC that I
currently have underway will tell by its result if this bug was by
mistake or on purpose.<br><br>
<br>
<b>People's centered network legitimacy<br><br>
</b>Obviously, the probably negative result of my appeal will be played
low key and will not directly impact many things. However, like my
preceding denied appeals, it will give the IUTF its legitimacy (making it
acknowledged, accepted, and possibly helped among some architectural
leaders) to deploy an internet use free architecture (i.e. concerning the
upper OSI layers and above) that will include an extended layer 6
[presentation] implementation “<u>on the user side”</u>, in full respect
and transparency of the TCP/IP model and RFCs, unrestrained from their
statUS-quo NSA guided restrictions.<br><br>
The people's centered network (P&P - interpeers) architecture the
WSIS consensually called for, is far more powerfull than what the
constrained Internet technology is permitted to deliver today by the
"statUS-quorrect" ICANN/NRO policies and the industry"s
market share protection strategies. The keyword here is
"diktyology", i.e. the "in between" use of digital
networking (not networks) where the human thinking uses mathematics and
the human languages use semantics. This is network-programming (such as
erlangs permits it), not to be confuse with computer-network-programming
(this is why a dedicated word is better). This truly is a new technical
culture, which is now nearly ready. In a way this was inroduced by John
Day, Louis Pouzin, etc.<br><br>
Like every seed, mine starts small, calls for obstinacy, and sometime
gives a result or is copied. Nothing happens without a dumb, stubborn
seed.<br><br>
<br><br>
<b>"Doubt and try"<br><br>
</b>This is why I eventually prefer the “doubt and try” Descartes
approach (actually the only thing one can object to as regards Descartes
is to not have doubted of his one self). His second precept
(reductionism) is an illusion, and so is the fourth (that one can omit
nothing), but the third (to proceed by level of complexity) is advisable
and the first seems quite pertinent: “never to accept anything for true
which I did not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to
avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my
judgment than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as
to exclude all ground of doubt”.<br><br>
<br>
<b>Our 7D universe<br><br>
</b>What Ken Thomson taught us is that, in addition, we cannot trust even
what we see as true, even in considering that we are in a 4D world,
because we also are in a humanly intelligent world with three man added
dimensions about: intercommunicated data, metadata information (data on
data), and syllodata (data between data) intellition (intercommunicated
information intelligent consistency).<br><br>
Welcome to the humanly governed chaotic determinism of our fractal world
7D reality. The long line of searchers, logicians, mathematicians,
physicians, and ecologists, since the Henri Poincaré 1889 winning non
resolution of the “n-body” problem, seem to point out that there are
three natural states in life organization (negentropy) that can commute
on the impact of life’s erosion (entropy):<br>
- concerted (or free) organization: balanced stability,<br>
- moderated (or governed) organization: driven
stability,<br>
- self-organization criticality as evidenced by Per Bak:
instability that may transform into a crisis.<br><br>
For many, PRISM is a netquake. It is a reminder that life is not a quiet
river that you can always trust. The Snowden avalanche and its impacts is
a good example of the way reality cybernetically works by cause/effect
(action/reaction)...and that clever people can architectonically twist
its internal enaction process (and affect the reaction) without anyone
noticing it.<br><br>
jfc</blockquote></blockquote></body>
</html>