<html>
<body>
At 00:28 04/04/2015, Fouad Bajwa wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">But this should be a larger
debate beyond the remit of nation states that involves the broader civil
society and other stakeholders. These technologies did not just appear on
their own, they were developed by individuals, groups, communities and
companies and so forth. Why are we so afraid to create a discourse and
bridge the gaps opposed to the propaganda? Why not raise and argue at the
IGF and regional fora? Why not a dynamic coalition on the
issue?</blockquote><br>
This should. But for the time being better for me to share in the most
efficient part I can forster/help.<br><br>
This is why I would certainly ***welcome and support*** a dynamic
coalition on the issue. However, as long as I am concerned I can only
focus on the post-google internet practical "initem" (set of
initial conditions to condition or having conditionned a system), i.e.
the catenet's substructural (between operations and infrastructure)
technology that will allow to complete the second phase of Vint Cerf's
IEN 48 project of 1978 - of which the first phase was the present
internet.
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt" eudora="autourl">
https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt</a> ("objectives"
section).<br><br>
This was definitly blocked since 1985 by the NSA "status-quo"
strategy of architectural protection (lack of OSI Layer 6 presentation in
the UNIX/internet architecture). The recente "premissionless
innovation" now partly opens the door to that possibility; however
they want to keep controlling it via the "maffia type"
multistakeholder pretence. Technological emergence is omnistakeholder
based anyway, but they will keep containing it as much as they can until
a full "layer-6+" has been incorporated in the multiple
technologies involved.
<a href="https://www.iab.org/2014/11/14/iab-statement-on-internet-confidentiality/" eudora="autourl">
https://www.iab.org/2014/11/14/iab-statement-on-internet-confidentiality/</a>
<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Thursday, 2 April 2015,
Jefsey <<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com">jefsey@jefsey.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Fouad,<br><br>
<dd>the problem is not that much what they do, but that they do it in
order to accustom us to what they are going to do soon - by Sept. 30,
2015: i.e. to formally make ICANN the international law of the internet -
and the FCC the cybersupreme court. The transition is from an US
Executive Dominion to a colonny under US jursdiction (cf. TPP, TAFTA,
etc.)<br>
<dd>Up to now, the only consideration for an alternative is my appeal
(<a href="http://iuwg.net/index.php/Letter_to_Lawrence_E._Strickling,_Assistant_Secretary,_NTIA">
http://iuwg.net/index.php/Letter_to_Lawrence_E._Strickling,_Assistant_Secretary,_NTIA</a>
). <br><br>
<dd>RFC 2026 states: "In all cases a decision concerning the
disposition of the dispute, and the communication of that decision to the
parties involved, must be accomplished within a reasonable period of
time." The delay in responding shows that they consider it carefully
as it desserves. So far everything is on track. I expect that several
"MYCANN Plugs-in" will be ready by Oct. 1st.<br><br>
<dd>jfc<br><br>
<br>
<dd>At 14:16 02/04/2015, Fouad Bajwa wrote:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>How far will nations go with addressing the cyberattack threat?<br>
<dd>Pakistan has a cybercrime bill in the making that treats such
attacks<br>
<dd>within its borders as treason and severe punishments while
larger<br>
<dd>powerful nations with global reach like the US are going to treat
this<br>
<dd>possibly with sanctions. Civil Society has so far been a back
seat<br>
<dd>audience on such contemporary security issues. There have been<br>
<dd>academic interventions on such subjects but within the
practitioner<br>
<dd>and regulatory spaces, there hardly have been any alternative<br>
<dd>approaches to seriously address such issue. May be some
consideration<br>
<dd>in future IGFs?<br><br>
<dd>FYI<br>
<dd>Obama threatens foreign cyber attackers with sanctions<br>
<dd>Warwick Ashford, Thursday 02 April 2015 09:45<br>
<dd>Computer Weekly - CYBER SECURITY<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500243644/Obama-threatens-foreign-cyber-attackers-with-sanctions">
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500243644/Obama-threatens-foreign-cyber-attackers-with-sanctions</a>
<br><br>
<dd>--<br>
<dd>Regards.<br>
<dd>--------------------------<br>
<dd>Fouad Bajwa<br>
<dd>Public Policy Analyst<br>
<dd>Follow my Tweets:
<a href="http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa">http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa</a>
<br>
<dd>My Blog: Internet's Governance:
<a href="http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/">
http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/</a><br><br>
<br><br>
<dd>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit<br>
<dd>Content-Disposition: inline<br><br>
<dd>____________________________________________________________<br>
<dd>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<dd>Â Â Â <a href="??">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<dd>To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<dd>Â Â Â
<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>Â Â Â
<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>Â Â Â
<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><br>
<br>
</dl><br><br>
</dl><br><br>
-- <br>
Regards.<br>
--------------------------<br>
Fouad Bajwa<br>
Public Policy Analyst<br>
Follow my Tweets:
<a href="http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa">http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa</a>
<br>
My Blog: Internet's Governance:
<a href="http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/">
http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/</a><br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>