[bestbits] Internet Governance Outlook 2017: Nationalistic Hierarchies vs. Multistakeholder Networks?

[willi uebelherr]

for information

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Internet Governance Outlook 2017: Nationalistic Hierarchies vs. 
Multistakeholder Networks?
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:45:44 -0300
From: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
To: IGF gov <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
CC: ISOC Internet Policy <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>, IGF dc 
<dc at intgovforum.org>, IGF dc ctu 
<dc_connectingtheunconnected at intgovforum.org>, IGF dc civ 
<values at coreinternetvalues.org>

Internet Governance Outlook 2017: Nationalistic Hierarchies vs. 
Multistakeholder Networks?
By Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Jan 06, 2017
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160106_internet_outlook_2017_nationalistic_hierarchies_multistakeholder/

Dear friends,

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter has made an outlook on the year 2017 and looks 
scared at the strengthening of regional self-control, which he calls 
"Nationalistic Hierarchies". But he ignores today's "Inter-Nationalistic 
hierarchies", which also work with "multistakeholder networks".

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, whom I estimate very highly, is strictly 
interested in an open Internet based on "multistakeholder networks". And 
that's what he does. But he does not see the snares that he put itself 
at his feet.

IANA Transition and the Chinese Cybersecurity Law

In the text is asserted that the IANA Transition is a "bottom-up" and 
the Chinese Law a "top-down" development process. Of course, we can say 
many things. But if we know a little bit about the USA, we know, that a 
bottom-up method in the telecommunication will be impossible in the USA. 
This, because the actors are the centralistic state and the centralistic 
private groups. In such an environment a bottom-up process is impossible.

For China, where the telecommunication is a project of the society, 
there it can be possible. Also in Russia and Iran. But never in Europe 
today. And absolutly never in Germany today. The space of possibilities 
for telecommunication is primary defined from the inner structure of a 
society. Only if the actors don't have his private interests, that are 
oriented against the other actors, they can really cooperate.

In China and Russland and Iran they can transform the connection 
infrastructure to a net-structure, the base condition for a bottom-up 
development process in the telecommunication. For Europe and North 
America with his fighter groups every one against all others it will be 
impossible. Only if the Communities start as actors in the space of 
community networks, then they can do it. This, because the 
telecommunication stays for them in the foreground.

This activity space for an open telecommunication, a pre-condition for 
the connectivity structure and the summary of all forms of 
telecommunication like web-pages and data-files, audio/video streams, 
telefon, radio and tv, brings us to a level that we can say: 3 types of 
data (text, grafic, speech) and 2 forms of transport (asynchron, synchron).

Wolfgang wrote about "ideologically overloaded Internet Governance 
language" and means China. But all documents from the IGF, what i have 
read, are pure "ideologically overloaded Internet Governance language". 
Never you find any conrete discussion about the basics of 
telecommunication. You find only phraseology.

The Internet Governance Ecosystem as a "Virtual Rainforest"

I don't know, where Wolfgang live. But i know, we have to separate our 
strong analysis of a real system and our dreams, our visions. I know, 
without our dreams we will be unable to create our visions and 
perspectives. Therefore, we can spaek about opportunities, that really 
exist. But they remain opportunities and are unreal, virtual.

Then we can go deeper and look for the specific actors. We analyse her 
interst and her bases of her being. Then we understand, what 
opportunities we have with this actors.

This is the driving motor for the community networks. Because they see 
clear, what space of activities they have with this real actors. 
Therefore they create another space of actors with a much greater space 
of opportunities.

The existence of diversity need the decentralisation and 
parallelisation. In the nature, of course. But if we want to use our 
methodology for centralisation in an act for diversity, we will fail.

US vs. China: Chances for a Digital Detente

The only risk of a "hot cyberwar" i see it in the USA. NSA, home 
security and all this many security services. The most people on our 
planet know it. How it is possible, that a high active person like 
Wolfgang in the UN IGF environment don't know it? Maybe, he know, but 
don't like it and create his virtual reality? Then he live in another 
space. Outside of our space. I don't know where.

Wolfgang wrote about the "National Cyberspace Security Strategy" from 
China "for treason, secession, revolt, subversion or stealing or leaking 
of state secrets would be punished". But the same is valid for USA, 
Canada, all european countries. We see it with Daniel Ellsberg, Eric 
Snowden, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and many many others from so 
many countries in all centuries. Go to the Wikipedia and search 
Whistleblowers. Analyse her doing and her repression. Then we 
understand, that this theme have no specific value for USA and China.

It is embedded in the general conflict between people and state. And 
because the state act for the rich group in her region, the conflict is 
between the poor and the rich people. Or, like Stiglitz say, between the 
99% and the 1%.

And i will say very clear. As long as this UN IGF groups act in the same 
separated space outside of the public space, based on her traditional 
representative self-imagination, they will never be part of a creative 
transition for our global interconnection in the telecommunication.

And endless chain of governmental and non-governmental negotiations
Summit Meetings

This is the only thing, what they have and for what they are interested. 
It is based on the functions for what they are created.

Remaining Peace between ICANN and ITU?

"... 1000 new gTLDs ... 25 million with gTLD .. is not bad."

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter don't understand the principles of an open 
telecommunication in form of an InterNet. Our focus are the ccTLDs and 
not the private gTLDs to make domain business. But this is more a 
question to our philosophy. Are we intersted to be slaves of some big 
Dollar groups or are we intersted for an open global working 
telecommunication. Every person itself have to find her answer.

The Key Role of the IGF

".. that the IGF has matured". I can say very clear NO. It is the same 
"kindergarten" since his beginning. They act in a virtual space, are 
driven from group egoism everywhere, are observers of observers ... and 
don't have his own clear perspectives.

Of course, they have the potential to formulate clear principles of an 
open globally telecommunication. But they don't like that to do. They 
like more to act as soldiers for others.

We have the same situation in the ISOC, the Internet Society. It is 
clear, this is a society without any specific relation to state, private 
companies or governments. They act outside of this nationalism. Or 
should do it.

UN IGF and ISOC can have a big power, if they are responsible to the 
people and not to the power groups. With her regional chapters they can 
help to distribute our discussions and proposals over the planet. But 
today, we can say, they don't do it, because they don't like to do it.

Maybe, it is a result of her financial base for her event-tourism. But 
if we work for telecommunication, we should start to use it for our 
interaction and not to travel around the planet. We can reduce the 
efforts and can opening the space on this way.

"... the failure of ACTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or the 
Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Pact (TTIP) is the result of this 
clash of cultures". This is a big nonsense. The diversity in our 
local/regional cultures is the reality and we love it. And we need it.

The conflicts comes from small power groups against the world 
population, the people on our planet in her different regions. And we 
know, that today also the people in her region have not developed her 
power for self-organising and self-determination. The regionale elites 
act for the global elites and not for the local people.

".. discussing IOT related issues". There don't exist specific IOT 
related issues. It exist issues to the routing mechanism based on the IP 
addresses. If we use our intelligence for this issues we will never 
organise this nonsense, what we have today.

...
Basket 4: Technology

".. the technological development as such has become an issue in 
itself". I know, Wolfgang don't understand the technology. So, we have 
to explain: The technology was and is always the base of 
telecommunication. Therefore, for us, the technology always stay in the 
center. And not the cheap chatters in any meetings or IGF proposals.

Looking Ahead: Everything is linked to Everything

Yes, dear Wolfgang. "We have to design global discussions and 
negotiations" on telecommunication, and not on Internet Governance. If 
we need Governance, then we make some errors.

"The Internet is a network of networks, connected via universal 
technical protocols". No, Wolfgang. The protocols do nothing. The 
interconnection, the transport of packets, do that. The protocols are 
only necessary, that we do the same thing and understand, how the others 
work.

The attempt of a resume

If we act on false bases then we are unable to find good solutions. 
Independent, how strong we work. I you, Wolfgang, start with negation of 
regional self-determination and act on the base of global top-down 
formation then you will be never able to find good ways. Then you live 
in a circle of self-explanations. You act in your own ideologic space 
without the connection to the reality.

Of course, you can do it. And maybe, this is your job to do it.

The starting point for us is, that all people on our planet can use this 
global telecommunication system to interconnect herself with any other 
people on our planet. For what is her decision.

The easiest way to do that is the way of strong decentralisation. Then 
the people in all and any region on our planet can create her part of 
our global telecommunication. That all this people can independent act 
we create our global network for free technology.

In the text to Internet Fragmentation, what you wrote together with 
V.Cerf and W.Drake, you wrote about:
"From a technical standpoint, the original shared vision guiding the 
Internet’s development was that every device on the Internet should be 
able to exchange data packets with any other device that was willing to 
receive them".

We know from Albert Einstein:
"The genius is always simple"

This principles we can follow. Why you, Wolfgang, follow this confusion 
in the UN IGF, i don't understand.

Based on our physical interconnection we can implement very easy 
mechanism, that the packets find her way through the routers.

With a decentralised DNS system based on ccTLDs it is very easy for us 
to get any IP address from any host in any gloabal region.

In general, it is the responsiblity for the people in the different 
regions to organise, what they need. And we, in the UN IGF and ISOC, and 
i hope also in the World Social Forums, we can support the people 
everywhere to do itself.

many greetings, willi
Asuncion, Paraguay