<html>
<body>
Dear David,<br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>Thank you for your response. From what I gather,
our (you and me) exchange was a determining point, as – in addition – we
both demand technical accuracy: this implies that our exchange was not
biased. (John Curan has added a key calendary point I will address later
on).<br><br>
All of us now know where we stand . I will cover it in five points that I
will use for a page on the
<a href="http://brasummit.org/">http://brasummit.org</a> wiki.<br><br>
- the wholization vs. internationalization<br>
- the background<br>
- irt. conceptuality<br>
- irt. technicality<br>
- conclusion<br><br>
I will then intersperse comments in your input.<br><br>
<br>
<b><u>1. Wholization vs. internationalization<br><br>
</u></b>Until know (let us say, for common reference, until e-Snowden),
the industry's strategy was "internationalization" (cf. Unicode
explanation). This means to internationalize the US standards to colonize
foreign industries. This is now switching to "wholization",
which is our problem and is well introduced in
(<a href="http://www.research-degree-thesis.com/showinfo-154-1288914-0.html">
http://www.research-degree-thesis.com/showinfo-154-1288914-0.html</a>):
<br><br>
<dl>
<dd><i>"Since the fast development of the wholization of globe
financial market and electronic trade and communication technology, the
market environments that global exchanges are facing have greatly
changed. More and more exchanges switch from a governance structure based
on traditional members cooperatives to for-profit companies to suit sharp
competitive market conditions".<br><br></i>
</dl>This boils down to the leading business stakeholders' hijacking of
the world's digital synergy, i.e. the difference between the whole and
global:
<dl>
<dd>"whole = whole sum of the stakeholders’ outputs + synergy among
all the stakeholders".
</dl>The added value produced by people is sold to them: "if
it’s free, you are the product". Why share in an enhanced
cooperation when one can sell it?<br><br>
This change (on which the ICANN business plan is based) is accepted as a
fact by the members of the technical coalition initiative that is to
adapt:<br>
- the multi-stakeholder control from multilateral (governments and
governmental specialized cooperations influenced by the USG)<br>
- to a business coalition based upon technical necessities and the
demands of "global communities" such as media, e-commerce,
cyber-military procurement, social engineering, languages, sex,
etc.<br><br>
This adaptation has known different steps:<br>
- RFC 6852 agreement to organize cooperation into coopetition (the term
coalition is now used) on the technical (standards) and commercial
(FRAND) areas.<br>
- the e-Snowden saga that frees the cyber-military/security procurement
business.<br>
- the Montevideo declaration to politically establish the US stakeholders
group (i.e. originating from the statUS-quo) as the founders, ensuring
continuity.<br>
- the Dilma Rousseff romance to obtain political support for the
ICANN/IANA "globalization" and try to squeeze the various
possible competing initiatives.<br><br>
In order to have a chance of success that "Technical Coalition"
strategy has to be inclusive both technically and conceptually. Your
responses show that it is not. <br><br>
<br>
<b><u>2. Background<br><br>
</u></b>The WSIS:<br>
- assigned us an esthetic: i.e. a "people centered, à caractére
humain, centrada en la persona" Information Society. <br>
- started its ethitechnic practice in calling for a multi-stakeholder
cooperation process advised by dynamic coalitions gathering in the
IGF.<br><br>
There is a growing consensus of the world digisphere that the whole
digital ecosystem governance is to be improved. There are three cultures
involved: <br><br>
1.1. yours: I understand as determined by Jon Postel's first (net
centric) sentence of RFC 820 (1983): "The ARPANET community is
making the transition from the ARPANET to the ARPA Internet." You
managed its center of reference as an excellent IANA Director for years.
<br><br>
1.2. mine: I inherited it from Norman Hardy and Robert Tréhin. It is
based upon the deployment of the (world centric) International Network (I
note this as IntNet to differentiate it) by PTTs and some large and small
private operators, competitively using the Tymnet architecture rather
than the BBN one. I created the <u>non-profit</u> Intlnet (in 1978) in
order to support its free open center of reference (INTLFILE) and its
local relational space abstracts.<br>
<br>
1.3. Civil Society: their concerns are Human Digital Rights, i.e. without
denying the existence of various forms of Digital Rights, to make sure
that these Human Digital Rights will not conflict with Human Rights. This
is summarized in the precautionary principle
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle</a>) that is
statutory in the EU and constitutional in France. Not respecting it
would, therefore, balkanize the internet. <br><br>
<br>
<b><u>3. irt. conceptuallity<br><br>
</u></b>The alternative boils down to: "either the internet model
should beimposed on the world, or the internet model should adapt to the
world?" You clearly show you favor the former choice in:
<br><br>
1. considering the Internet as the ultimate reference. I talked and
underlined that I talked about human digital names and numbers and of the
labels of the root names. You understood DNS. For you the internet root
is the unique reference point of the universe instead of being one of the
65,635 windows for the universe on the Internet DNS (RFC 1035).<br><br>
2. I talked of the INTLFILE as the open repository of the roots of the
human digital names and numbers. You doubted it because the authors of
its IANA abstract did not acknowledge the names of those who selected the
labels they used. <br><br>
3. You did not care about the other architectonical needs that they might
have the Internet root file does not address (in spite of the RFC 1236
example).<br><br>
<br>
<b><u>4. irt. technicallity<br><br>
</u></b>I proposed you(and documented why the ICANN/IANA globalization
called for Civil Society to be a leading stakeholder in the technical
solution) to work on that solution. This is because "code is
law" and the IANA is the core of the code. Anything the stakeholders
may discuss, anytime, anywhere will necessarily depend on the technical
reference center of the technology they are discussing, because
"code is law".<br><br>
You and I have certainly the deepest experience in the matter, hence the
strongest obligation to participate in this effort and to see this
discussion located at the best place in the Technical and Political
agora. In spite of my indication that experience on the IETF and IUCG
both sides was currently leading to a possible convergence, subject to
the interest of ISOC, you are not interested. <br><br>
I can only read your response as a technico-cultural disinterest in an
evolution of the IANA because you consider the effort useless, or out of
the common agenda. And even perhaps as an opposition because you
deliberately increase the chances that mistakes are made in conceiving
that evolution if we miss your experience.<br><br>
<br>
<b><u>5. Conclusion<br><br>
</u></b>The only conclusion I can draft from this is that ICANN/IANA
technical globalization is not on the agenda of the Technical Coalition
culture. The matter is only the governance and not the cyberspace, the
architecture of which affects the governance, security among the whole
digital ecosystem, and mutual trust within the digisphere.<br><br>
We, therefore, have documented and illustrated together, at its very
core, the reality of the power-grab attempts of the Technical Coalition
members that is discussed, on the Internet infra and meta structures
(hardware and protocols). What is interesting is that this is really a
technical power-grab and not a money-grab, which raises several questions
on the different agendas.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
PS. the respective nature of the INTLFILE and of the IANA, their
affiliation, and their histories through RFCs are of interest to
understand the architectural limitations, the possible architectonical
evolutions of the Internet, and their impact on the Human Digital Rights
(and possibly on Digital Human Rights, i.e. extensions to the HR due to
the societal extensions, or to incidental constrains). This calls for a
critical technical investigation to be conducted with the utmost accuracy
(as technical concerns may have changed over decades). It will be a part
of the architectonical work in which I am engaged
(<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki/INTLFILE/IANA" eudora="autourl">
http://iucg.org/wiki/INTLFILE/IANA</a>).<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b>At 04:37 24/10/2013, David
Conrad wrote:<br>
Typically, if one wishes to be intellectually honest, one acknowledges
the contributions of others. Given your claim to being among those that
designed a core portion of the DNS, I'm surprised that the folks now
credited with its creation (some of which I know, or knew well) didn't
acknowledge your and your colleagues efforts or even reference them in
any way.</blockquote><br>
</b>The Internet team relation with the external world was through BBN
and Tymshare (as per what I found in RFCs). Tymnet and Telenet, which
were the operational networks,are not quoted. In Telenet's case, this
seems understandable, as the technology was by BBN and Tymnet carried all
the US international operations (through IRCs). Our responsibility in
terms of international naming was documented by our FCC license. This
made the INTLFILE a public matter. I am not shocked that no one thought
about mentioning us (moreover, we never published or claimed
it).<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b>Who do you credit for
"US" or "China"?<br>
I don't understand the question. </b></blockquote><br>
Someone created these terms. We do not know them and acknowledge their
contributions.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">BTW, are you not American? Cees
is Dutch, Bob and I are French, but all the others are US citizens. I
accept that most were distant foreigners to you (offices in Bub Road,
Cupertino), but Neil lived in Los Altos. <br>
I am an American in the sense that I am a citizen of the USA, yes, but
not sure what my (or your or your compatriots') nationality has to do
with anything in this thread. <b></b></blockquote><br>
This was mentioned because it was you who talked about them as my
compatriots. It was just to point out that not everything came from
France :-) <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">(BTW, it's spelled
"Bubb").</blockquote><br>
Yes! Thank you for the accuracy. I seldom make the error nowadays.
It was "bubble" road a long time ago; bubbling with new ideas
that initially Bob Tréhin used to bring us back when visiting there (we
were located in St-Cloud, in the western suburbs of Paris).
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I know that I am as stupid as an
internet wire, and that you enjoy contradicting, <br>
I have no opinion of your intelligence. My interest on this list (well,
the igc list which seems to have been dropped from the cc's) is primarily
technical accuracy, not necessarily contradicting. When someone asserts
"This why they designed the DNS to support 35,635 roots." I
feel a need to comment.</blockquote><br>
RFC 1035, ICANN ICP/3.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">As I doubt anyone actually cares
about my opinion on the matter and the rest of your questions aren't
related to issues of technical accuracy, I'll refrain from further
comment.<b></blockquote><br>
</b>As I explained above, this is sad for the all of us.<br><br>
You certainly have to contribute in the way that is best for maintaining
technical accuracy in a distributed globalized/wholized IANA system.
Intlnet embarked into the thinking about the INTLFILE evolution as an
MDRS from the end of the 1980s (Multilingual Distributed Meta-Data
Registry System). Not an easy task as not so many people understand the
need, the issues and where it leads to. For example, I was never able to
get a working French JTC1/SC32 mirror committee in order to push for the
study and the standardization of such a real-time system. Unicode refused
to discuss a DDDS to operationally support their IANA langtags table
(they just wanted their vision to be carved in the IANA stone).<br><br>
Best,<br>
jfc<br><br>
</body>
</html>