[governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
Ian Peter
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Fri May 16 16:22:04 EDT 2008
I havent followed the European initiative as closely, but I am a member of
a couple of GENI working groups. Thus far most discussion I remember has
been about how to create a technical platform for any individual or group to
engage in experimentation without conflict - concepts such as slices. No
models have been chosen for a new Internet. Yes, CS should keep a watching
brief particularly if anyone starts talking about user requirements. As far
as I know anyone can join the discussion groups.
However, I would predict that the new Internet is far more likely to emerge
from small business in India or China than from state funded largely
academic initiatives. Nor is it likely to emerge from an IETF or an ITU. I
suspect something will emerge and we will just adopt it because it adds
value. And I suggest the model will be something like what happened with
TCP/IP - it didn't replace the existing systems so much as pave over the top
of them over a number of years by universal assent.
Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> Sent: 17 May 2008 02:16
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
>
>
> I must repeat my concern though which is who is invited to the table to
> participate in these discussions largely determines the outcome of the
> discussions... Stakeholders pursue their "stakes"... So if CS or community
> technology activists are not at the table their interests and concerns
> aren't going to be taken into account as the
> research/policy/infrastructure
> plays out...as is notably evident in the Bled Declaration (and as can be
> read between the lines of Wolfgang's report...
>
> MG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: May 16, 2008 8:48 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller
> Subject: RE: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
>
>
> I agree there is potential for 'clean slate Internet' research to lead to
> conflicting national and regional standards efforts - it is safe to assume
> this will occur in future as in past.
>
> But having served as a reviewer for some of this, I can say mostly we are
> talking about very long-term academic research, more or less
> interdisciplinary, which may lead to a practical outcome.
>
> Too soon for alarm for the IG community, but yeah folks should pay
> attention
> to where the net may - or may not - go next.
>
> Lee
>
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> >>> mueller at syr.edu 05/16/08 11:34 AM >>>
>
> Thanks for this valuable report, Wolfgang.
> As other scholars can attest, there is a long history of regional
> standards
> competition in telecommunications and media -- US v. Europe v. Japan --
> involving such things as color TV, High Definition/digital TV, and mobile
> telecoms (GSM vs. CDMA). The Internet was in a sense lucky to overcome
> this
> fragmentation, but it did so by global dominance of a single
> nonproprietary
> standard originated in the US. Current competitive efforts to come up with
> a
> "new" "clean slate" Internet are more likely to revert to the pattern of
> competing regional standards, in my opinion. Quite apart from the control
> issues.
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All
> Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> > I was in this conference (as a member of an EU FP 7 project).
> > This was an official EU meeting which took place under the
> > Slovenian Presidency and united a large number of Internet
> > research projects financed by the FP 7 programme of the EU.
> > This was not an academic but more a political conference. It
> > was more presentation. http://www.fi-bled.eu/programme.php.
> > First day from political leaders and other non-European
> > projects, including FIND, GENI and AKARI. Second and third
> > day presentations by individual members of the FP 7 projects.
> > There was no real discussion. But what I observed was a deep
> > a split. Some groups are enthusiastic about "clean slate"
> > (mainly supported by the telcos) , other are more than
> > sceptical. The whole conference was dominated by engineers.
> > The so-called "socio-economoc dimension" was not included
> > into the agenda on a prominent place. My impression was that
> > the EU Commission wanted to position itself as a "big player"
> > in NGN discussion between the US (FIND, GENI) and JP (AKARI
> > etc.) projects. Also the idea of the proposed "European
> > Future Internet Assembly" is rather vague. I proposed to link
> > this to the proposed "European Internet Governance Forum" (by
> > the European Parliament), but EU Commission officials said
> > this are two different things. However, I discovered in the
> > final "Bled Declaration" that the IGF is now mentioned.
> > Hopefuklly this can be seen as an invitation for a
> > cross-disciplinary dialogue. The text of the "Bled
> > Declaration" was not discussed or negotiated in Bled. It was
> > just prepared by the Commission. Robert is right that the
> > document gives the impression of "re-invention of the
> > Internet". BTW this was also the case during the recent ITU
> > Caleidescope conference in Geneva, May 12 - 13, 2008.
> > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/uni/kaleidoscope/programme.html
> > There timeline is 2020. And again, these groups are not
> > linked to the IG folks grouped around ICANN, IETF, IPv6 and iDNs.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > wolfgang ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1446 - Release Date:
> 16/05/2008 07:42
>
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1446 - Release Date: 16/05/2008
07:42
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list