<html>
<body>
On 07:46 15/11/2013, Pranesh Prakash said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear Norbert and all,<br>
A number of people, including some of the Steering Committees /<br>
coordinators mentioned, take part in civil society discussions not
as<br>
representatives of organizations, but in an individual capacity.<br><br>
If we ask NGOs to declare their sources of funding as a transparency<br>
measure, should we require of these individuals, as a colleague of
mine<br>
suggested in Bali recently, the declaration of their income tax
returns?</blockquote><br><br>
Well, for years I was explained I was over suspicious about the NTIA,
NSA, etc. intelligent processing capacities. Things have a logic and do
happen. Very often a minimum of logic permits to reduce the harassment
you allude to while increasing security and protection. This is why
big-data are of interest: why tapping what you could dig from what you
know?<br><br>
Then apply the precautionary principle: if you doubt make the other
demonstrate hi/she is not a danger. To know if you are to doubt or not,
there is a need to assess the environment where we are, what is proposed
and dicussed, how to evaluate who is with us or against what we strive
for. When you have been trapped is usually too late.<br><br>
NB: evaluation is not judgment. It is just to know were we
stand.<br><br>
In order to help that logical process, I tried to make a grid our today
situation and evaluate who can help us or will not.<br>
Comments welcome.<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
<b><u>The digital ecosystem<br>
</u></b> <br>
1. The digital ecosystem is a man-made extension of the natural ecosystem
that, just as everything human, involves three architectonical
layers:<br>
<br>
* hardware: bandwidth, machines, premises, etc.<br>
* software: architecture, operating systems,
applications, protocols<br>
* brainware: memory, intelligence, norms
(constitution, treaties), standards (laws, international agreements),
best practices (rules, contracts, behaviors).<br>
<br>
2. The digital ecosystem is heterarchical
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterarchy" eudora="autourl">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterarchy</a>) in that it is based on three
types of relations:<br>
<br>
* <b>monolectic</b>: question-response,
action-reaction which corresponds to a monarchic, centralized basic form
of decision.<br>
*<b> dialectic</b>: the human logic, the
thesis-antithesis-synthesis paradigm that corresponds to a democratic,
decentralized valued added form of decision.<br>
* <b>polylectic</b>: the natural mechanism of
distributed emergence (the whole is more than the sum of its parts)
corresponds to a concerted extended form of decision.<br>
* we know it as being <b>political</b>
(i.e. among <b>free</b> <b>people</b>) and used to try to reduce to a sum
of dialectic decisions <br>
* we learn it as also being <b>technical
</b>(i.e. architectonically <b>bound by mechanisms</b> that we either
discover [science] or create [technology]).<br>
<br>
3. The digital ecosystem develops in three new technology areas:<br>
<br>
3.1. information: it is extracted from data of which the datamass is
expanding drastically. <br>
3.2. communications: to spread information through data transportation
that is currently mostly limited by the sole use of TCP/IP.<br>
3.3. intellition: to get the captured/received information together: what
PRISM does and is then forgotten due to indignation on some of the
sources of data capture used by the NSA.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b><u>Decisions and ethic<br>
</u></b> <br>
3. <b>MSism </b>is a decision process where stakeholders inclusively
<b>concert</b> decisions without a king, president, or votes. <br>
<br>
4. An <b>esthetic</b> is the perfection that one targets. Its
<b>ethics</b> is the set of rules that use it as a short, medium, and
long term, as well as daily, criterion.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b><u>Stewardship models<br>
</u></b> <br>
5. In building the <b>digital</b> ecosystem, the I* group has
progressively identified:<br>
<br>
5.1. an esthetic: to make the internet work better along the core values
documented in RFC 3935 and under the long hidden influence of an
architectonic USG strategy (The BUG).<br>
5.2. an enhanced form of decision: rough consensus and running code.<br>
5.3. an extending cooperation among the technicians sponsored (RFC 3869)
first by the US Government and then by USG procurement and private
industry and commerce (ISOC Members) in an international context of
motivated users (ISOC local chapters).<br>
5.4. the "wholization" polylectic result over
"globalization" costs and efforts of an economic "<b>huge
bounty</b>" (RFC 6852) that their industrial and commercial members
want to protect and share.<br>
<br>
6. In considering the <b>social</b> evolution, the WSIS has
identified:<br>
<br>
6.1. one esthetic: the information society resulting from the millennium
objectives is to be people centric. <br>
6.2. a three level MSism stewardship mechanism:<br>
6.2.1. enhanced cooperation among four groups: Governments, Business,
Multilateral, and "others", labeled as "Civil
Society".<br>
6.2.2. the IGF for the heterarchy members to mix and concert.<br>
6.2.3 either individually or with the help of stakeholders’ dynamic
coalitions in each of these groups.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b><u>Situation assessment<br>
</u></b> <br>
7. Today, the situation seems to be:<br>
<br>
7.1. there is a desire for unification that will necessarily lead to the
unification of the control of the "huge bounty". <br>
7.2. there is a long-term trend reflecting/being influenced by the USG
architectonic investment and ROI strategy.<br>
7.2.1. it architectonically consists in transforming the statUS-quo
internationalized standards into a global norm.<br>
7.2.2. the transversal vector is a "T&A" US StakeHolders
(“USSH”) driven community embodied by ISOC into an I*$ociety looking for
a sort of Internet TPP (prepared through the TIPP – Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership and Data Protection).<br>
7.2.3. where a supposed correction (by globalization) of the ICANN
structural BUG and respect of the IANA global charter<br>
7.2.4. would lock the world legal system and the "huge bounty"
(money) out of the reach of the non-sponsored technical majority<br>
7.2.5. torpedoing the WSIS model and unifying the whole digital ecosystem
(WDE) under the I*$ociety model.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b><u>Friend or Foe identification questionnaire<br>
</u></b> <br>
8. The issue being the kind of synthesis of the two I*$ociety and WSIS MS
models, people's positions need to be identified through their objectives
and sponsors:<br>
<br>
8.1. can "others" (Civil Society) also participate in Govs,
Businesses, and Multilateral decision processes?<br>
8.2. is there a unique "T&A" community or is there one per
enhanced cooperation group? <br>
8.3. do you accept Dr. Lessig's principle that in the technically built
cyberspace "code is law"?<br>
8.4. do you think that Network Neutrality strictly involves separate
legal requirements and technical provisions in response, or can there be
a mix of them?<br>
8.5. is technology restricted to data transport or does it extend to
transport intelligent use prior to delivery to people's
applications?<br>
8.6. in your opinion, if the ICANN/NTIA root server system was hacked for
several days, would the impact on the internet be catastrophic,
important, minor, or null? <br>
8.7. do you think that algorithmic governance (decisions made by
programs) and cybercrimes technical capacities are non-technical issues?
<br>
8.8. are you ready to join a CS T&A initiative?<br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>8.9. who paid for your T&L for the foreign
meetings you (plan to) attend(ed)?<br>
</body>
</html>