<html>
<body>
At 16:04 29/01/2015, Eduardo Villanueva wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi Willi<br><br>
For what I understand of your argument, you believe that “internet
governance” is irrelevant because there is only need for a number
(perhaps a limited number) of technical decisions to guarantee that the
Internet continues to work as such. While I think there’s a lot more
there to discuss than just the technical issues of the interconnection of
networks as they stand today, may I ask you how do you think the
institutional arrangements necessary to reach the technical solutions
should be? Just maintain the IETF? Or something
different?</blockquote><br>
Dear Eduardo, <br><br>
Digital networking is conceptually a singularity in human thinking,
before becoming one in technology (I understand a singularity here as
when human society extends by way of something that it must retain to
remain human).<br><br>
It is embodied in the mathematical, physical, cosmological, and
biological scientific evolution of the last 125 years (since the Raymond
Poincar non-resolution of the "n-body" problem, i.e. the end
of the Ptolemaic, Copernican, and Newtonian [a very long time] area where
we thought that :<br><br>
* space and time were absolute and continuous, <br>
* understanding could be logic (dialectic and linear), <br>
* the principle of an excluded third was correct, <br>
* and the cause always came before the effect.<br><br>
Since then, we know better, in that things, thoughts, influences,
interests, etc. are not hierarchical but rather meshed and
non-simultaneous. In particular, we know that the universe is multiple at
least because everything is the center of its/his/her own universe, and
probably because the meshing is complex. <br><br>
This is why there is no such thing as an "internet governance":
there are billions of individual governances, on individual men and
machines digitalities, that include (or not) the use of one of the
various main data network transport technologies (the number and power is
enlarging: internet(s), NDN, SDN, ethernet, etc.).<br><br>
Open-Stand<br>
---------------<br>
Pragmatically, the heads of IEEE, IETF, IAB, ISOC, and W3C have agreed
that they have observed this paradigmatic change
(<a href="http://open-stand.org/">http://open-stand.org</a> or RFC 6852).
This results in a coopetitive innovation between global communities
fostered by their market economies. <br><br>
In an attempt to keep things under control, there are at least four
complete/consistent doctrines that emerge:<br><br>
- structured multilateral vision by governments. It is "ported"
by the ITU and the International Telecommunication Treaty.<br>
- industrial leadership, pushed by the NTIA which disengages partly from
its internet exclusive involvement in order to be able to politically
invest in the new ones.<br>
- commercial leadership, ported by ICANN which asks the WEF to read the
economic demand for them.<br>
- Libre's cosmological (everyone is the center of his/her network) vision
as chosen by the WSIS (an information society that is to be "people
centered, caractre humain, centrada en la persona").<br><br>
An unproductive buzz is maintained by some claiming to be "the Civil
Society".<br><br>
The IETF/IAB acknowledgment<br>
---------------------------------------<br>
In a network, technological cohesion must come before innovation (theres
no use in having a better yet fragmented network). This put the IAB at
the core of the system stability, as the master of the IANA. However,
this time is over. IAB is consistent with the general change and does not
want to assume the responsibility anymore. This disengagement:<br><br>
- was implied in RFC 6852 (I appealed it for that reason: for ISOC to
clarify, but the NTIA's statement came before, after the IAB layer).<br>
- this is documented in the WG/IANAPLAN IESG approved Draft (to be
published as an RFC)
<a href="http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/">
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/</a>
<br>
- I am going to appeal it - not to oppose it, but to force ISOC to give
more exposure to their decision, in order to leave no doubt in
anyone's mind and avoid miscomprehension conflicts.<br><br>
As a result, the IETF Chair has officially transferred the ultimate IETF
guidance and decision to the NTIA:
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/01/taking-a-step-towards-iana-transition/">
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/01/taking-a-step-towards-iana-transition/</a>
<br><br>
Consequences<br>
------------------<br>
This is a great clarification: it transforms the IETF into an USIETF, the
same as ICANN was the AmerICANN. <br><br>
However, it leaves us in front of a fragmented multitechnology situation.
This only means that we have accomplished the Internet Projects (IEN 48
http://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt) first motivation and now we are
switching to its second one, i.e. its inter-technology phase. In this
second phase, the network continuity does not result mainly from the
middle layers: the catenet (the network of networks, the concatenation of
all the local and virtual networks) is completed and is pervasive. So, we
can trust and rely on the lower layers stability, and differentiate our
middle layers choices depending on our different needs and communities
best interests: e.g. ICANN/Rosettanet, Google/Internet, Netflix/NDN,
Cloud/SDN, smart cities/meshed networks, etc.<br><br>
The political and economic hysteresis is in favor of ITU, NTIA (ISOC and
ICANN probably apart), but the Libre is freed as a community and can
focus on an upper layer (intelligent use) of the lower layers of the
Catenet, whatever the middle layer (transport) being used.<br><br>
This is why we have initiated the CCC Free/Libre project of a Catenet
Cooperative Company, for an intelligent use (IUse) of our
collectively built and shared network of our networks. The advantage of
the Cooperative concept (one man/corporate/institution = one vote) is
that our polycratic multitude (no societal agreement with a specific
sovereign power) can organize on structured a democratic basis. This
permits an "omnishareholder" intergovernance that may be less
conflict prone than the current forms of coopted/biased
"multistakeholderism" and/or fuzzy forums, lose coalitions or
fluid communities.<br><br>
Required common technical work<br>
------------------------------------------<br>
This is to be technically ported by a standalone digital capacity for
everyone in our anthropobotic (men + bots) society. A
"post-human" capacity, even more than a "human
right".<br><br>
This calls for a catenetbox virtual machine/plug-ins and for a common
metadata registry system. Users will need to load an intelligent use
interface (IUI) plug-in, hosting the different communication network
technologies to be used, and coordinating with upper layers in names (DNS
CLASSes), numbers (everyone has already a digital network address:
his/her/its telephone number), parameters (for/by each technology), and
documentation areas.<br><br>
Coopetitively developing/testing this Libre catenetbox, its various
functions, and its netix interapplication system is now to be one of our
priorities. <br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>However, there are others, such as building a
technically lasting shareholder database (everyone has a diginame), a
wiki 3.0, and an IANA protocol to permit mutual documentation and
information, etc. This is networking. Then, we need to advance in the
direction we are really interested in: inter-comprehension facilitation.
The Intersem, i.e. the intersemiotic layers of datacommunications.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">This particular issue is at the
center of many debates about Internet governance, but i gather you may
think that there is a better, simpler solution that will resolve the
issue without all the hoopla around the IGF, NMI, ISF and everything
else. </blockquote><br>
They will remain as the wake of the new course we will have set.<br><br>
Best.<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Thanks for your time. <br><br>
<br>
Eduardo Villanueva-Mansilla<br>
Associate Professor, Dept. Communications<br>
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú<br>
<a href="mailto:evillan@pucp.pe">evillan@pucp.pe</a><br>
<a href="http://www.eduardovillanueva.com/" eudora="autourl">
www.eduardovillanueva.com</a><br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">El 29/1/2015, a las 9:48, willi
uebelherr
<<a href="mailto:willi.uebelherr@gmail.com">
willi.uebelherr@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<br><br>
Dear Nathalie.<br><br>
Am 28/01/2015 um 09:26 p.m. schrieb Nathalie Coupet:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Could you explain what kind of
decentralized architecture would be necessary to eliminate the retention
of virtual address spaces?</blockquote><br>
In general, addresses are geografical position. Then the transport is
very easy. If you destroy this principle, then you need administration to
create the necessary information about the geografical location from you
virtual address.<br><br>
For me, the "decentralized architecture" is the reality of
distributed local communities, where we live. The reality self is the
"architecture of decentralization".<br><br>
The "Internet Governance" is a useless and cheap theater. For
that, they need this virtualisation of addresses.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">What process would need to be in
place to assign address space according to the geographical position in
the network?</blockquote><br>
We have to create a open discussion about a useful world coordinate
system. Our WC84, what we mostly use, is not really optimal. The
distances between 2 degrees is on the pol 0 and on the equator max. We
use triangles.<br><br>
Also we have to discuss our transform algorithm from WC (world
coordinate) to 64 bit global IP-address and back. The local 64 bit
IP-address is independent of that. The people decide the address
mechanism.<br><br>
And we have to discuss our decentralized DNS-System. The roots are always
the local networks. You can ask this roots and save for later. Or forget
and ask later the same. But because all people need it, we organize it as
a common task in the locality.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Thank you. Nathalie<br>
Sent from my iPhone</blockquote><br>
Thank you, Willi<br>
Sent from my mail client Thunderbird portable with PortableApps<br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" eudora="autourl">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></blockquote><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
discuss@1net.org<br>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" eudora="autourl">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></blockquote></body>
</html>