<html>
<body>
Louis, Suresh, Avri, and Ian,<br><br>
Your recent mail exchange certainly calls for a community review of our
own battle for <b><u>which</u></b> power <b><u>shared with who</u></b>
(MS-ism) <b><u>or not</u></b> on the <b><u>real</u></b> Internet.<br>
I will start from Avris's and Suresh's last mails. And then I will
considered the anti-gang protection engaged by the techies: why, question
my adhesion to it and where we stand.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b><u>At 05:13 03/11/2013, Avri
Doria wrote</u>:<br>
Hi,<br>
I must admit I saw no mention of gangs in the article. Feudal lords,
vassals and peasants, yes, but not gangs.</blockquote><br>
</b><a name="_GoBack"></a>The point is not so much the article but rather
its incomplete Feudal comparison (every comparison is incomplete). What
is missing is something that I would certainly call a "gang",
i.e. (Wikipedia disambiguation): "a group of recurrently associating
individuals who share a common identity" [As a seaman, I know that I
come on board through the gangway]. <br>
<br>
What is described by nature, historical experience, and current
experience, are gangs. What are "open root TLDs" according to
you, Suresh?<br><br>
Now, can you not object to Govs and want that every clique or consortium
abides by Gov (which Gov?) laws? This mailing list is a criminal gang as
per many countries’ laws. Perhaps countries’ cultures that have not know
feudal history have less understanding of the phenomena that we have
mostly known in France as free companies
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_company">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_company</a>. <br><br>
These are today's cyber-gangs. This is even the most important issue
among Govs right now: is Google (which imposes its own laws worldwide on
its users) a gang or a multinational State? ICANN as a non-member
("dead-hand") corporation is absolutely illegal in France. The
Chair of Wikimedia France spent a day being questioned by the Homeland
equivalent over some Wikipedia (another multinational power) pages
disclosing military information.<br><br>
The legal status of the international gangs of influence is an issue that
we should seriously consider before some of us are arrested rather than
to use it as a cause of dispute among us. (What is a lobby? A group of
people influencing to obtain something which is still illegal).<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b>The article, btw, seems to be
the same as any number of articles he has put out lately sounding his
call to desperation. Almost the same as the one that was in this year's
Mind issue.<br>
He does make one point in this one I have not seen him make before that I
find interesting - that all of the vendors are turning their operating
systems into entry ways for walled gardens. <br>
Guess it is time to move back to a Linux flavor. sigh</b>.
</blockquote><br>
Linux? <br>
OpenBSD may be.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b><u>On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:34,
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote</u>:<br>
> None of this refers to power gangs of the internet though, whatever
they are supposed to mean.<br>
> <br>
> --srs (htc one x)</blockquote><br>
</b>I must say that giving the lead to these gangs is what kept me from
provoking a full reform of the Internet architecture. That is because it
necessarily called for the technical engineering of a major conflict (*)
of interest over an architectural issue. This would have given gangs the
possibility to take an important role until Govs, people, etc. could
organize a response and a more secure architecture. <br>
<br>
(*) I obtained some results through RFC orientations in showing that I
could disturb the Internet standardization process, naming, addressing,
linguistic, IANA, architecture of use, etc. (what I could do alone could
be much more dangerous if carried out by a Government, or a gang [free
company] with less friendly objectives). Destabilizing "the
internet" is easy for obvious architectural reasons that are well
documented. Quite a few responsible leaders know it. I explained
yesterday as to who they are. And who was historically the first
one.<br>
<br><br>
<b><u>OpenStand/Montevideo<br><br>
</u></b>They know that the risk to the world economy is great because of
the quicker gangs’ capacity to react than Governments and international
agreements. Therefore, I thought it advisable for us all to have an
alternative organization documented beforehand. As does Vint Cerf and
Google: for example, the DNS root system is fully backed-up by Google’s
"Public DNS".<br><br>
To protect "serious" business from the risk,
ISOC/IEEE/IAB/IETF/W3C consigned the RFC 6852 statement on August
29, 2012. They are now attempting to structure an alliance including
ICANN in order to share and protect the Internet "huge bounty"
and keep the Internet in line with Governments’ procurement, Telcos,
Developing countries, and the main corporation "global
communities" markets. They even plan – with our help - an Internet
providers’ commercial show labeled as a "Rio summit". To invite
the customers and explain to them how the Internet is stable, beautiful,
controlled, money making, etc. and agree with them as to what to do in
order to make it more so.<br><br>
However, times/things have probably changed. Why would we trust beyond
doubt the technicians who led us to a technical situation where:<br>
- Edward Snowden has shown that trust in the current statUS-quo had to be
checked first.<br>
- John Curran has shown that gangs were already a big pain for the
Internet operations.<br>
- Lauri Love
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/28/us-usa-crime-hacking-idUSBRE99R0LP20131028">
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/28/us-usa-crime-hacking-idUSBRE99R0LP20131028</a>
has penetrated the S/NIPER systems and installed back-doors around (it
would be strange if he is the only one).<br>
- David Miranda is now accused of terrorism:
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/01/us-uk-nsa-idUSBRE9A013O20131101">
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/01/us-uk-nsa-idUSBRE9A013O20131101</a>
. Next time, it will be the Internet designers. <br><br>
<br>
<b><u>I cannot adhere: this is not enough<br><br>
</u></b>In addition, the IETF does not consider the most important
demand: the intelligent use needs; because its partners (mobile
application designers) want to control that market in order to share the
“huge bounty”. Forget about a neutral internet: the mobile is free, the
network is free, and you pay by being sold to content providers. I have
nothing against that economy. But this is not the only one I want to use
and the one I want to have lived and fought for.<br><br>
The question mark is when the USG is going to revert their story. For
years they have told us that we could trust the US-made internet (we know
why!). I see that Suresh and Avri have started to bash Louis for speaking
the truth about that story. This is interesting. When are the Internet
activists going to blame him for not having imposed his full architecture
when he was copied only in part by Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn?<br><br>
<br>
<b><u>What should we do first?<br>
</u></b> <br>
Things have to be clear: there are different visions of the internet, of
the civil society, of the world future among us. The Brazilian Summit
could be an occasion for us to better document them. If we want to build
positive positions and build efficient actions together we need to know
where we come from and where we want to go.<br>
</body>
</html>