[bestbits] [discuss] from confusion to clarification

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Sat Jan 31 06:34:41 EST 2015

At 16:04 29/01/2015, Eduardo Villanueva wrote:
>Hi Willi
>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?

Dear Eduardo,

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).

It is embodied in the mathematical, physical, cosmological, and 
biological scientific evolution of the last 125 years (since the 
Raymond Poincaré 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 :

* space and time were absolute and continuous,
* understanding could be logic (dialectic and linear),
* the principle of an excluded third was correct,
* and the cause always came before the effect.

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.

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.).

Pragmatically, the heads of IEEE, IETF, IAB, ISOC, and W3C have 
agreed that they have observed this paradigmatic change 
(<http://open-stand.org/>http://open-stand.org or RFC 6852). This 
results in a coopetitive innovation between global communities 
fostered by their market economies.

In an attempt to keep things under control, there are at least four 
complete/consistent doctrines that emerge:

- structured multilateral vision by governments. It is "ported" by 
the ITU and the International Telecommunication Treaty.
- 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.
- commercial leadership, ported by ICANN which asks the WEF to read 
the economic demand for them.
- 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, à caractère humain, centrada en la persona").

An unproductive buzz is maintained by some claiming to be "the Civil Society".

The IETF/IAB acknowledgment
In a network, technological cohesion must come before innovation 
(there's 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 

- 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).
- this is documented in the WG/IANAPLAN IESG approved Draft (to be 
published as an RFC) 

- 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.

As a result, the IETF Chair has officially transferred the ultimate 
IETF guidance and decision to the NTIA: 

This is a great clarification: it transforms the IETF into an USIETF, 
the same as ICANN was the AmerICANN.

However, it leaves us in front of a fragmented multitechnology 
situation. This only means that we have accomplished the Internet 
Project's (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.

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.

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 

Required common technical work
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".

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.

Coopetitively developing/testing this Libre catenetbox, its various 
functions, and its netix interapplication system is now to be one of 
our priorities.

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.

>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.

They will remain as the wake of the new course we will have set.


>Thanks for your time.
>Eduardo Villanueva-Mansilla
>Associate Professor, Dept. Communications
>Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
><mailto:evillan at pucp.pe>evillan at pucp.pe
>>El 29/1/2015, a las 9:48, willi uebelherr 
>><<mailto:willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> escribió:
>>Dear Nathalie.
>>Am 28/01/2015 um 09:26 p.m. schrieb Nathalie Coupet:
>>>Could you explain what kind of decentralized architecture would be 
>>>necessary to eliminate the retention of virtual address spaces?
>>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.
>>For me, the "decentralized architecture" is the reality of 
>>distributed local communities, where we live. The reality self is 
>>the "architecture of decentralization".
>>The "Internet Governance" is a useless and cheap theater. For that, 
>>they need this virtualisation of addresses.
>>>What process would need to be in place to assign address space 
>>>according to the geographical position in the network?
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>>Thank you. Nathalie
>>>Sent from my iPhone
>>Thank you, Willi
>>Sent from my mail client Thunderbird portable with PortableApps
>>discuss mailing list
>><mailto:discuss at 1net.org>discuss at 1net.org
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150131/b7e1851d/attachment.htm>

More information about the Bestbits mailing list