[governance] When Machines Kill

[jefsey]

At 01:41 23/09/2010, Sylvia Caras wrote:
>This seems to me a subset of the governance and standards question,
>and my sense of unintended consequences of software is stronger than
>this author's.

Sylvia,

this is not a governance but an adminance issue. Adminance is the 
administration, maintenance, and delivery of the technological means 
that Governance needs. It was not considered by the WSIS and is 
progressively understood in real life. The true war and crimes 
against humanity are carried at the adminance level because, through 
standards orientation and acceptance, this is where the possible 
(good or bad) future is decided. In this case the discussion is about 
true weapons. At the IETF one discusses standards which will 
influence the world ability to live better or not, and in this way 
will condition the life of billion of people - without any democratic 
supervision.
RFC 3935: "The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, 
relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way 
people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make 
the Internet work better. [...]  The Internet isn't value-neutral, 
and neither is the IETF.  We want the Internet to be useful for 
communities that share our commitment to openness and fairness.  We 
embrace technical concepts such as decentralized control, edge-user 
empowerment and sharing of resources, because those concepts resonate 
with the core values of the IETF community.  These concepts have 
little to do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with 
the technology that we choose to create."
This is why the true "core values of the Internet" ("the constitution 
is in the code") have been "chosen" by IETF to "influence" the 
Governance in such a way as to make the Internet work "better" :
what does that "better" mean? For who? According to who?

This is why the practical possibility to ethically use of the 
Internet or not has been decided a long ago without ethical 
consideration when researching the Internet technology with a 
commercial bias, as documented by RFC 3869 of IAB.
RFC 3869 states: "The principal thesis of this document is that if 
commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet 
research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in 
trouble.  In addition to issues about which projects are funded, the 
funding source can also affect the content of the research, for 
example, towards or against the development of open standards, or 
taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed 
protocols on the other traffic on the Internet."
The question could also be: how many people die everyday that a 
better Internet technology, a better Internet adminance, a better 
Internet Governance and/or a better Internet neutrality might have 
directly or indirectly helped to save ?

This is the true issue of all the WSIS/IGF discussions and the shared 
responsibility of lists such as this one.

Best
jfc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100923/6f70d646/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t