<html>
<body>
At 20:51 29/04/2015, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Whatever you do with your
computer, you are still part a world that is trying to avoid wars by
peaceful means (national laws, international laws and treaties). Nuclear
weapons might be part of that peace process but I leave this to the
specialists.</blockquote><br>
Dear JC,<br><br>
this is totally orthogonal to the issue. The world digital ecosystem has
a constitution. That constitution is its source code (Lessig). Whatever
you can discuss about the impact of the political, legal, sentimental,
economic, intellectual, national, etc. ecosystems, you will not change
that: my machine only obey its source code.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">More to my first point: your
assumption is "...as long as my machine can use the catenet the way
I wish". Well this is something that quite does not the fit the
ordinary citizen.</blockquote><br>
Yes, it does. My machine uses the catenet the way both are designed.
However, external political, legal, sentimental, economic, intellectual,
national, etc. factors including cops, lack of money to subscribe,
cyberterorists, power outage, etc. may impeach my machine to connect the
catenet.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Moreover it suggests a world of
individualities that could one way or another live by themselves, as far
they do not interact with others. OK I do play around a bit, but still
your starting line seems a bit individualistic when thinking of
collective and public interest. And therefore the reasoning might fall
short of the real issue which is not only about one accessing and using
the catenet as he wishes. The challenges we face go beyond that
point.</blockquote><br>
No. You are outdated. The Information Society is deemed to be people
centered. i.e. with billions of individual centers, what fits the
cosmological model of Einstein. The ICANNET BUG (Being Unilaterally
Global) is just a bug. That it pleases some is a consequence of the
"don't call it a bug, call it a feature" syndrom. But at the
end of the day multiple versions of the "MYCANN plug-in" will
fix that. Creating another mess calling for an anti-multipluging
fix.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">If the compass is "freedom
to connect to the catenet", then maybe it is better to be a pro US
as they do love to give us Freedom here, Freedom there. They love it so
much because it resonates with Free-market, with as very limited
regulation (competition, distortion, abuse...) So if this is all about
freedom, and if we do not find any reason to care about others, then we
do not need any such e-listing.</blockquote><br>
Hmmm ! ever heard of NSA? Patriot Act. Master/slave relation - or
sometimes a consumer/server model?<br><br>
I Heard about NSA-compatibility in 1985. Closed my shop.
Economics/technology are now in favor of Relationnels Libres freeing
themselves from the miltaro-industrial band. Let see what RFC 6852
permissionless innovation principles lead to. Let set-up as post-google
civil society Mitre project.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Second point: what Barry says
makes a lot of sense when coming to legitimacy, or enfranchised
stake-holders. This sense of chaos among the "stake-holders",
these who-ever that Jankélévitch would make fun of, is a way to negate
the collective burden. It flattens everything and everyone in its due
rights. Take the MS definition as per Larry Strickling (thanks to
Carolina for fowarding this to the list). It might not endanger you
wether you play in the system, or outside the system. But it might be an
issue for many others without all of your abilities.<br><br>
<i><a name="14d01dafb675ae2d__ftnref1"></a>Strickling: "What do we
mean by the multistakeholder model? One expert defines the
multistakeholder model as different interest groups coming together on an
equal footing to “identify problems, define solutions, and agree on roles
and responsibilities for policy development, implementation, monitoring
and evaluation.” </i></blockquote><br>
I am not interested in wasting much more time in money selected expert
meetings. I prefer running code and living mode. My role and
responsibility in all this was and still is to make it work. They blocked
me as non-NSA-compatible 30 years ago. Time has technically come for us
to enjoy resuming the frozen innovation.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Whatever RFC we talk about, we
have an issue here. </blockquote><br>
Please explain. Most of architectural RFCs are good enough if they are
respected.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Where I tend to follow you is
about the fact that the solution will ultimately come from techies, to
bypass all this domination, when the degree of dominance will be
recognized as a toxic wonder killing societal fabric, democratic debate,
encouraging all abuses... Open roots and other ideas are interesting and
challenging to the current tech-order. Das Order! On that I believe your
first option is the right one, the second one being just a big
<i>pantomine</i>.</blockquote><br>
It is no more a pantomine than Saddam's mass destruction weapons. <br>
This is the way the US tried to lead the world in order to lead political
consumers to sign TIPP, ACTA, etc.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I still believe that politics
(and our old fashion democratic principles) need to fully step in this MS
mess.</blockquote><br>
Democracy is out of scope. Democracy is for citizens, belonging to a
city, located on a territory. It calls for a bouleuterion, archons and
cops.<br><br>
The digital ecosystem is the people's agora. We are in an agoric concept
(i.e. polylectic logic). The US are in a an enthymeme vision (monolectic
logic) : "We are the US, hence we rule the world". Things are
slightly more complex. At least democracy is dialectic.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">It might sounds like two
principles or concept opposing each other, when they are not. Think of
integration and decentralization. They can accommodate and uphold each
other. Surely we will go through more blahblah.- before anything can
happen, or before a group large enough will become the obvious
alternative to this stupidity. <br>
Debating is part of any democratic process.<br><br>
Trying to build on what you, Barry and others are
saying.</blockquote><br>
The network is holocratic. We are a multitude of fringe to fringe VGN
(virtual glocal networks) Masters, sharing ***our*** local digital and
financial resources to build the global catenet we need. Can you explain
me what ICANN brings to us, if they are not the cheapest, leanest, most
efficient common secretariat to our common needs - i.e. mutual address
plans, namespaces billions of roots, multitechnology parameter excel
table keeper and interfunctional meeting report writer ?<br><br>
Best<br>
jfc<br>
<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Le 29 avr. 2015 à 15:05, Jefsey
a écrit :<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Gentlemen,<br><br>
it seems that all this are dreams in the air.<br>
xxxxcracies are about government of several people. Here we consider the
mutual governance of machines. I personnally do not give a damn about
what you may think, vote, decide, etc. as long as my machine can use the
catenet (i.e. the shared digital local resources that make the global
network) the way I wish.<br><br>
The only thing that can happen to me is that you gather together in a
"global community" (cf. RFC 6852) making your machines not to
respect the RFCs and trying bloking mine. OK. That is your problem if I
technically circumvent you - soemthing I and you have no doubt the Libre
community can easily do.<br><br>
Next, you can decide to lobby the lawmaking process and send me cops to
prevent me from using my machine along the RFCs. This is exactly what
some of you are doing, who bet that the best cops for the job are the
american ones.<br><br>
Here the response is (for those who care about the US weapons of mass
destruction) :<br>
- either to technically outsmart the american lawmakers (again as per RFC
6852, through non RFC standardization people will use) and disregard its
cops, TPP, TAFTA, etc.<br>
- or to make the odds so uncertain for the US that the US executive
branch delays its transition to ICANN/DAVOS.<br><br>
I am afraid everything else is either international blahblahblah or local
US election preparation.<br>
Thank you to tell me where I am wrong ?<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
At 11:36 29/04/2015, Norbert Bollow wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:15:35
+0200<br>
Jean-Christophe Nothias
<<a href="mailto:jeanchristophe.nothias@gmail.com">
jeanchristophe.nothias@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>
> This tyranny of majority is an intriguing item.<br><br>
In governance systems which have majority voting but not the other<br>
essential elements of the modern understanding of democracy, it will<br>
sometimes happen that tyrannical, i.e. human rights violating,
decision<br>
proposals are supported by a majority of votes, and therefore<br>
considered adopted. A famous example was the state-sanctioned murder
of<br>
Socrates in ancient Athens.<br><br>
In democratic governance systems of course in such a situation there
is<br>
the possibility to get the outcome of the vote overturned by a court<br>
decision on the basis that it is a human rights violation.<br><br>
In democratic governance systems therefore tyranny of majority does
not<br>
occur.<br><br>
Greetings,<br>
Norbert<br><br>
<br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline<br><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">
governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">
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">
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/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>
Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote><br><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">
governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">
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">
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/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>
Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote><br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline<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>