<html>
<body>
At 23:34 26/06/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear JFC,<br><br>
Thank you for your elaboration, which I have read from first to last word
-- I am probably one of a few who take the trouble to read your messages
integrally. No offense but I am sorry to say this: I understand Foucault
(whom I can read and understand in original version without opening a
dictionary), including his translations in English, better than I
understand you. </blockquote><br>
Dear Mawaki,<br>
This was an answer to you and to the very few who take the trouble of
reading my mails. I suppose this will be the case of this response.
50 years from now, some historian doctoral student may make some money at
being the second reader in publishing a "They known!"
thesis.<br><br>
The problem we face is not what the people may discuss (what creates the
problems to solve) but the reality they should first comprehend (in order
to solve them).<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The IGC membership/audience is
not one of network architects. </blockquote><br>
Correct. <br><br>
And this is a good thing because before you have any use for architects
you need architectonicians. The fathest IAB went into that direction
(together with IEEE, IETF, ISOC, W3C, further joined by RIRs, and ICANN
in Montevideo) is the RFC 6852, the "OpenStand modern paradigm for
standards" statement which is an abdication of the network
architects and engineers into the merchants hands (the ICC people you
refer to).<br><br>
The IGC is supposed to be a membership/audience of civil users. The
question is to know users of what: blablabla or reality. Blablabla is
what you can indefinitly talk about until your and all your
interlocutors' death. Reality is what you cannot change and we all have
to live with.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">This thread was not meant to
discuss any particular substantive issue, </blockquote><br>
You mean just keep blablablaing?<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">nor was it intended to propose
an alternate architecture to the Internet as we know it</blockquote><br>
I am sorry, there is no alternate architecture to reality. Only its
understanding and you may win. Or its misunderstanding and you are sure
to lose.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">or to the IG ecosystem for that
matter. </blockquote><br>
An ecosystem by definition is the reality life. It cannot have an
alternative. All you can do is to make it more confortable to live in if
you accept its reality, and less confortable if you deny that
reality.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">That might come some other time.
But for now, we only seek to figure out how to give a new breath to this
Caucus and enable it to work again collaboratively and productively in
order to remain relevant</blockquote><br>
You cannot be relevant if you base yourself on misunderstandings.
Everyone having a small DNS experience knows about the importance of the
roots.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">through its contributions when
it comes to public policy, societal and social implications of Internet
governance. For everyone's information, please see below an excerpt of
the IGC Charter regarding its mission and objectives.</blockquote><br>
Correct. And this community currently fails in fullfiling its
charter.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I would humbly advise you start
from the TERMS of OUR question/problem and try to guide us, using those
terms and others as simple as those terms, to the "promise
land" -- would be best if it is one that addresses our concern
-- even if such place may otherwise also be characterized through your
preferred architectonic lexicon. </blockquote><br>
Sorry, but I think you misread the terms of your charter. Here is the
crux (please see the comment to the charter quote). Most probably because
the reality has changed since it was written but this went unnoticed
yet.<br><br>
Since you say you read Foucault, I consider Antoinette Rouvroy
<a href="http://directory.unamur.be/staff/arouvroy" eudora="autourl">
http://directory.unamur.be/staff/arouvroy</a> as the most brillant
Foucaldian academic. I share with her many concerns she expresses in her
societal legalism/institutional approach. In particular about
"algoritmic governance": except a mail of mine I only found one
single IGC quote of Francesca Mussiani (another good civil society
academic):
<a href="http://adam.hypotheses.org/1791" eudora="autourl">
http://adam.hypotheses.org/1791</a>. <br><br>
That's all for a Caucus on the IG!!!<br><br>
Please note that Francesca's paper begins as follows: "Algorithms
are increasingly often cited as one of the fundamental shaping devices of
our daily, immersed-in-information existence". Not on this mailing
list yet. This IS the problem you want to addess. The NTIA has demanded
ICANN to build a new algorithm (that technically and humanly cannot
work).<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">But starting from your universe
and its language really makes it quite impossible for most people to
follow and make something useful for them out of your contributions.
</blockquote><br>
Sure. I am a seaman. If you want to use a lawyer's jargon at sea, I am
sure it will make impossible for everyone to use your contributions not
to sink. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I hope this group will still
benefit from your ideas in words that the least engaged of us can still
process.</blockquote><br>
This is why the first thing from Plato to Clausewitz and many others is
said to commonly understand what one talks about. <br><br>
1. There are two <u>intellectual ways</u> to obtain this:<br><br>
- for the interlocutors to negotiate a common understanding.<br>
- for the interlocutors to first work on a common referent.<br><br>
Most of the cultures and their linguistic vectors have adopted the fist
approach. The best at it are probably Poetry, English and Chinese
cultures. <br><br>
French and Sciences are probably the only ones having adopted the second
approach. Probably the most advanced synthesis in that area (which may
reach the core of architectonics [see below]) is Mioara Murgur Schachter
who comes from Quantum-Physics). This is the real core of the debate.
However I agree that this is NOT the best way for "the least engaged
of us" to process with the problem at hand.<br><br>
2. Fortunately there is also a <u>pragamatic way</u> to commonly
understand what one talks about. <br><br>
It is proven experimentation. The civil society inclusion in the IETF
(IUCG) has adopted it and slightly extended it from the David Clark:
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough
consensus, running code and leaving mode". <br><br>
That pragmatic way has a practical recipe that is the core of every
communication: "Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what
you accept" (Jon Postel, RFC 1122). It is in one single attitude the
experimental, and the intellectual conservative referent and negotiating
approaches attitude.<br><br>
<br>
Now, you will permit me to repeat the synthesis of the problem we
inherited from Aristotle and technology: <br>
- architectonics is the art of understanding reality, <br>
- as such it is the most important thing for politics <br>
- which is the art of commanding to free people. <br>
- The change is that free people's political contract has extended to
digital interconnection. This leads to what RFC 6852/OpenStand paradigm
describes as "global communities, benefiting humanity"
<br><br>
This antropologic change based on "bots" artificial organs
becoming necessary to the survival of humanity is called
"singularity". <br><br>
You therefore can either discuss it:<br>
1. in using pre-digital logomachy<br>
2. as an academic research<br>
3. based upon pragamatic experimentation <br><br>
Being fed-up with (1) and understanding the limits of (2) when it comes
to most of the concerned people, I advocate (3).<br><br>
I think the following Paul Oliver text may help you understanding why.
"Foucault devoted considerable time to researching the impact of
institutions on society and the lives of individuals. He was interested
in the power and influence that they exerted, and also in the fact that
some people simply could not avail themselves of the services provided by
institutions because they could not understand the systems within which
they operated. In such cases institutions can deprive people of their
personal freedom and autonomy. In circumstances where individual citizens
cannot successfully interact with institutions, then they can easily
become alienated from them, and moreover alienated from society in
general."<br><br>
This creates the situation where societal-contract-less persons from
neither a people, nor a crowd, but a "multitude". No one yet
has however tried the polycratic (the correct term <u>you</u> have to
define) problem of governing an internally connected multitude. However,
I am sure no one will succeed if he/she/we do not identify the problem as
such, an try to first understand it. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Thank you for your understanding
and cooperation.</blockquote><br>
Idem.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Best regards,<br><br>
Mawaki<br><br>
<b>Mission<br>
</b><br>
The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum
for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society
contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to
provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion,
policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues,
</blockquote><br>
Your position consists in censoring the Internet governance issues you do
not think the others are able to discuss. This is embarassing when they
are fundamental. This makes the entire Caucus useless.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">and to provide a mechanism for
coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of
Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy
processes.</blockquote><br>
You therefore deprieve this Caucus of the practical capacity (proven
experience) to advocate relevant policy process.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b>Objectives and Tasks<br>
</b><br>
The objectives and tasks of the IGC are to:<br><br>
* Inform civil society and other progressive groups/actors on significant
developments impacting on Internet governance policies.</blockquote><br>
The reality evolution is the firth thing people are to be made aware.
When ISOC, IEEE, IAB, IETF, W3C, RIRs state there is an evolution,
explain why and document the need to consider the resulting "huge
bounty", I feel this is worth some technical, political, industrial,
cvil society information.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">* Provide a context for open on
line and, wherever and whenever possible, face-to-face debate on the
range of issues related to Internet governance policies from a civil
society perspective.</blockquote><br>
The change is such that an open online description by concerned decision
makers and responding users should be considered as mandatory. A debate
like 1net discuss by the US incubement should be matched by a "0net
impact" debate.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">* Develop an on-going and
outcome oriented structure. Create informal relationships with various CS
groups and individuals with a direct interest in Internet governance
policies, including those involved in human rights, ICT4D, intellectual
property, international trade and global electronic commerce, access to
knowledge, and security.</blockquote><br>
I see relations with human rights. I am denied field ICT4D. You propose a
parallel to trade and electronic commerce but on an asymetric technical
basis. A discussion on digital knowledge is urgent. Where is discussed
true "security"?<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">* Provide outreach to other CS
groups who have an interest or a stake in some aspect of Internet
governance polices.</blockquote><br>
The work a very few of us engaged (fsp4net boot strap) is rebuked because
we do not have the same language.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Act as the representative of
itself, and other CS constituencies with similar interests, generally or
on specific issues, at various forums involved with Internet governance
policies.<br>
* For the sake of the above, as well as for more general purposes,
develop common positions on issues relating to Internet governance
policies, and make outreach efforts both for informing and for creating
broad-based support among other CS groups and individuals for such
positions.<br>
* Anticipate, identify and address emerging issues in the areas of
Internet governance and help shape issues and perspectives in a manner
that is informed by the stated vision of the IGC.</blockquote><br>
I am afraid that the whole thing is to advocate a very slow pace is
anticipating and identfying emerging issues. I understand that you want
to regulate the path. I am myslef slow when compared to the flood of
power and money invested to enslave us. You asked my opinion. I gave it.
You do what you want with it. This is your priviledge. Everyone must die.
One may influence the date :-) <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">* Collaborate with other
stakeholders in the implementation of agreed projects and policies
towards better Internet governance.</blockquote><br>
You know, at the flood time Noah had some hard time to even convince his
family ....<br><br>
Cheers !<br>
jfc<br><br>
(PS. I don't take myself for Noah :-) .... But what is for you if I was?
This is the reason why one makes contingency plans....)<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 6:40 PM,
JFC Morfin
<<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com">jefsey@jefsey.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Dear Mawaki,<br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>How to correct this?<br><br>
</u></b>
<dd>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>
<dd>If the others cannot network that peace, or need help, we have to
weave it at our own level: we the people. <br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>From my personal experience, we are right now <br>
<dd>- staturated at the states global VGN planes (US, CN, possibly
Europe, etc.),<br>
<dd>- we are fed-up by the private global systems (edge providers,
technology communities) <br>
<dd>- and uncertain about the states and private national VGNs
(e-government, national franchising, e-commerce). <br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>The engaged necessary wining path<br><br>
</u></b>
<dd>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>
<dd>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">
http://sv2b.net/index.php/Liste_d%27initiatives_comparables_dans_le_monde</a>
<br>
<dd>with links to local significative people's projects.<br><br>
<dd>The conceptual modem is simple:<br><br>
<dd>- a local physical meshed network offering fast and symetric
connections (M&M model: masters with masters),<br>
<dd>- with SDN (software designed networking) connected through OPES
(open pluggable edge services), <br>
<dd>- with a LISP IPv4 gateway relating with <br>
<dd> --- other similar plateforms <br>
<dd> --- or edge providers selected through the local/personal DNS
through different technology network systems. <br>
<dd> --- or regular current internet (default).<br><br>
<dd>Forget about ICANN, RIRs, IETF: <br>
<dd>- they only are interested in low grade (current non neutral
QoS),<br>
<dd>- while our VGN layer (actually the missing OSI presentation layer
six) can support <br>
<dd> --- local/global traffic optimization, <br>
<dd> --- including CCN (content centered networking) <br>
<dd> --- and active content intelligrams (intelligence)<br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>jfc<br><br>
<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<dd>At 14:01 26/06/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Dear Members,<br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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/" eudora="autourl">
<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>
<br>
<dd>Thanks for your cooperation.<br><br>
<dd>Mawaki<br><br>
<dd>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit<br>
<dd>Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="message-footer.txt"<br><br>
<br>
<dd>____________________________________________________________<br>
<dd>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<dd>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">
governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<dd>To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>
<dd>For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
<dd>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>
<dd>Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote><br>
</dl><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>