<html>
<body>
Dear Mawaki,<br><br>
let assume the WSIS achitectonic model (gov, private, international,
civil) is right. A serious MSism needs to proceed by layers/planes/topics
: politics, economy, technology, research, law, culture, etc. For each of
these layer/plane/topic each MS group need to bring a balancing
contribution that will contribute with its particular abilities,
interests, working results, dynamism, ideas, innovation.<br><br>
From what we observe Govs are influenced by the USG, private sector by
ICC, international by UN, i.e. three diversified layers/plans/topics
leadership/facilitating dynamisms. Civil Society, for various good and
bad reasons (including lack of money, lack of self-understanding of the
differences between government of people, sales to markets, NGO crowds,
and global complex multitude) has done quite nothing except focusing on
human rights, mostly only talking about them. <br><br>
As a result every human knows now how to be influenced by machines, be
commanded by govs, buy as a consumer, and wait for foreign help. We have
all forget that we are those who build the world, help each others, are
the govs and make the industry work. We forgot to contribute only
complaining.<br><br>
<br>
<b><u>How to correct this?<br><br>
</u></b>My understanding is that the WSIS model has three global and
specialized classes (govs, business and NGOs) and one local and general
one (Civil Society). We are at different granularity level. To obtain
global peace Govs want to coordinate, business to compete, NGOs to help:
we want to live in a resulting local peace we are to organize and
consolidate in our own framework.<br><br>
If the others cannot network that peace, or need help, we have to weave
it at our own level: we the people. <br><br>
This is why I think the solution is to come back to the network
fundamentals (it being ARPANET, Tymnet, Internet, UN, I*Core, etc.)
: the networking we use must fit the networking we are given. Govs,
business, International organizations try to build a top down solution:
the nework of networks. We need to use our networks in it. This makes a
simple model: the networks of the network of networks.<br><br>
This has a simple name which is called coalitions, alliances, peoples,
nations, communities, collectivities, families, frienship, projects,
persons, closed-user-groups, class/groups, etc. etc. in states, people
and machines relations. In internet wording these are "entangled
VGNs" (virtual global networks, or "open closed gardens").
They are the way we chose to stabilize our individual or grouped
optimization of our digitalities networking. <br><br>
You can call them the way you want if you are not pleased with the term.
The important thing for each of us is the way we can build, govern and
protect them..<br><br>
From my personal experience, we are right now <br>
- staturated at the states global VGN planes (US, CN, possibly Europe,
etc.),<br>
- we are fed-up by the private global systems (edge providers, technology
communities) <br>
- and uncertain about the states and private national VGNs (e-government,
national franchising, e-commerce). <br><br>
Also, we are not ready at individual planes (still a lot of Libre
solutions integration needed to ballance and interface with institutional
and commercial propositions). <br><br>
<br>
<b><u>The engaged necessary wining path<br><br>
</u></b>As a conquence, I think and try to experiment what is possible to
do at the intermediate level of quarters, villages, valleys, etc. Where
people share many different economic, political, cultural, family,etc.
interests. This is why I am more interested in the "intelligent
village on the information highways by everyone for everyone",
because as Gene Gaines puts it: "we are the internet". In that
context, the local VGN (virtual glocal network) become real stakeholders
with the same power as the US VGN, with their own HomeRoot, SuperIANA,
Happy-IPs. Not yet fully organized, tested, etc. But we have a few months
before they try to flood the planet with their NTIACANN Love Story. In
every plan preparation, a contingency plan is necessary. It is mine, and
I suggest that the more we are the best it will be.<br><br>
Sorry if my project is in French. But links are also in English. I would
like to fill this page:
<a href="http://sv2b.net/index.php/Liste_d'initiatives_comparables_dans_le_monde" eudora="autourl">
http://sv2b.net/index.php/Liste_d%27initiatives_comparables_dans_le_monde</a>
<br>
with links to local significative people's projects.<br><br>
The conceptual modem is simple:<br><br>
- a local physical meshed network offering fast and symetric connections
(M&M model: masters with masters),<br>
- with SDN (software designed networking) connected through OPES (open
pluggable edge services), <br>
- with a LISP IPv4 gateway relating with <br>
--- other similar plateforms <br>
--- or edge providers selected through the local/personal DNS
through different technology network systems. <br>
--- or regular current internet (default).<br><br>
Forget about ICANN, RIRs, IETF: <br>
- they only are interested in low grade (current non neutral QoS),<br>
- while our VGN layer (actually the missing OSI presentation layer six)
can support <br>
--- local/global traffic optimization, <br>
--- including CCN (content centered networking) <br>
--- and active content intelligrams (intelligence)<br><br>
This is not big conceptual deal, except that we have to coordinate a
myriad of solutions, make them compatible, etc. hence to be present as MS
"inter-users" (i.e. talking together and not only having
network access) in the normative assemblies. Standards are the way we are
governed. Time has come for norms to be part of political parties
projects. What is to be our society: power, money, machine, people
centered ?<br><br>
If we are not member of the resulting MS debate and running code/leaving
mode experimentation, never mind, the result will be the same (digital
world equilibrium) after some more delays and clashes. Scientifically
this is named "self-ordering criticality". "SOC" is
the way the world works. Criticalities can be benign when people are
smart, they can be wars when they are not.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
At 14:01 26/06/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear Members,<br><br>
This is an informal inquiry I would like to launch to hear from IGC
members or list subscribers and collect your ideas about where we should
go from here, as the Internet Governance Caucus. <br><br>
Particularly, please share your thoughts as to whether, in this context
of IG or Information Society more broadly, civil society needs an
analogue to what ICC BASIS
(<a href="http://www.iccwbo.org/advocacy-codes-and-rules/basis/">
<font face="arial">
http://www.iccwbo.org/advocacy-codes-and-rules/basis/</a>) </font>is
doing for business, and if so, what this would need to be like.<br><br>
Thanks for your cooperation.<br><br>
Mawaki<br><br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="message-footer.txt"<br><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>
Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" eudora="autourl">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote></body>
</html>