[governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet?

[jefsey]

At 00:25 05/02/2011, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>On 02/04/2011 01:13 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>
>>The text you provide is true. My question remains, within the current
>>state of affairs and what has happened to the Wikileaks website and
>>the numerous other being taken down under ACTA...
>
>The discussion requires greater precision.

I come back to this at the end of this mail.

>The machinery and web server still runs, packets still can flow 
>to/from the web server(s).

This is the current US case. This was not the Egyptian case. When the 
net is controlled in China it is another way to shut-up the net.

>The thing that was "taken down" was DNS resource record for which 
>the master source exists in a database run by a US company.  (I 
>don't know whether the database is on a machine in the US, but the 
>authority to control that database definitely is vested in a company 
>subject to US jurisdiction.)

ICANN has definitely killed the ICANN root concept (unless the USG 
has it say) in introducing the obligation for gTLDs to respect the 
USG international policy, and in not introducing classes. This makes 
the root an US root, calling for other national roots, and made ICANN 
subject to endless actions by gTLDs as everyone can legitimately 
operate any gTLD with a different zone in a different class.

>On 02/04/2011 12:05 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>>The question remains, in case of any country or website not complying
>>to what the US approves, will face a shutdown?
>
>There is another answer to all of this - which is to consider new 
>name systems for the internet.  I personally find this approach 
>attractive, particularly given that DNS fails terribly with regard 
>to persistence and does readily handle the kind of replication and 
>proximity that obtain with application entities living in "the 
>cloud".  But unlike others, I advocate retention of DNS names and 
>the DNS system as the tokens and machinery upon which such new 
>naming systems (plural) would be based.

This is documented by RFC 5890 to 5895 authored by John Klensin, 
Patrik Falström, Harald Alvestrand and Paul Hoffman under the 
Chairmanship of Vint Cerf under my pressure which eventually led to a 
full consensus. My initial position that was eventually encouraged by 
Vint, IESG and IAB (through appeals) was exactly that : to protect 
the ASCII DNS as the Internal Internet naming system, and build atop 
an ML-DNS (i.e. multi-layer DNS, able to support as many user and 
user-application oriented naming systems).

I have documented enough on this list the implications, the first one 
being to illustrate through the ML-DNS and the RFC 5895 two examples 
of the introduction of the principles of subsidiarity as one of the 
three basic principle of the Internet architecture with the principle 
of constant change (RFC 1958) and the principle of simplicity (RFC 3934).

I have spent last year in making clear if this falls in the IETF 
scope or not. The answer as I understood it from IESG and IAB is "no 
because it goes beyond the Internet and is multi-technology, but the 
outcome yes". Hence my present strategy: these RFCs permitted to 
identify the need for an uncoupled Internet Use Interface at the 
Internet fringe where to locate the ML-DNS and many other smart 
extended network services, presenting the users with an intelligent 
network experience, this "IUse" (where I stands for Internet, 
Intelligent, IETF) area and community to get emerging. There will 
probably be several IUI architectures, but the first need was to 
illustrate and validate the concept with one of them. This is the 
Internet PLUS (where PLUS means Plugged Layers on the User Side) 
adding two non-ISO intelligent network layers on the user machine for 
an extended better use of the networks (Internet or other technologies).

Unfortunately putting such a framework and project together, 
considering an ML-DNS prototype (as a fork of an existing solution). 
and getting it moving takes time, help, etc.

>I'd also strongly urge that one consider in those yet-to-be-invented 
>systems that one clearly face the question whether the names should 
>carry human semantic meaning - we all know the dangers that arise 
>when human semantics are introduced.

Human semantic is not to be introduced by supported. Not only as 
registered semantic, but as real meaning of the thought, towards 
facilitation to the intercomprehension. This may also turn out as an 
extraordinary way to compress information being exchanged (cf. 
Chaitin). However, this is the next communication stratum (semantic 
internet of thoughts).

Now, I want to come back to Fouad question.

The problem can be documented very simply. Communication has three main strata.
- physical - bandwidth
- logical - protocols, software,
- semantical - thoughts

TMs, politics, merchants try to use the logical layer to impose their 
commercial thinking on us, being protected by politicians who control 
the bandwidth. As explained above, what we (people) control is our 
IUI, the part of the extended Internet that manage (and will manage 
better and better) our use of the networks. At this time there is an 
enormous pressure to deny this IUI which uncouples us from the server 
(as in client/server) in having a server/IUI/our-application triad - 
us controlling our IUI. This is the whole iPhone, Android, M$, 
Majors, etc. strategy to impose a proprietary client on your mobile 
and your machine. So, at this stratum we have the answer and can work on it.

Recent events enlighten the need for us to also control our 
bandwidth. This means to deploy a free Internet back-up. To be free 
and to be active it has to be an Internet complement (offering 
Internet back-up in tough situation or in developing countries) by 
the people. This is why I quickly started two sites to work on this I 
will try to activate before the end of next week with a wiki and to 
open it to who will want to share :

- http://newtechnet.org : for us to specify the technology 
requirements and find a free and robust solution able to use 
telephone land lines, radio and meshed wifi network.
- http://theppl.net : for the organization of this free smart network system

It is understood that using such a network will be an option of the 
IUI systems, permitting an immediate and transparent (probable 
degraded mode) use by users. Even in case of mubarackobamania.

jfc






____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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