[governance] Re: below the societal usage layer

[jefsey]

At 13:10 07/02/2011, John Curran wrote:
>On Feb 7, 2011, at 3:45 AM, jefsey wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > I think we should give more thinking at the way to turn this 
> situation as an advantage. A smart multi-plug could be a blessing 
> for this and other transitions and other services.
> >
> > Civil society should not only complain and propose at the 
> societal usage layer, but also at the lower technical and human use 
> layers that condition them. It does not make sense to demand things 
> and not to care about their practical feasibility.
>
>Full agreement... In fact, the development of IPv6 has been one
>of the strongest influences on my thoughts regarding the need for
>multistakeholder involvement in standards and technical policy
>setting activities.
>
>It's perfectly reasonable to have the technological constraints
>play a major factor in outcome determination, but not without
>the proactive solicitation of views from those affected by the
>results.

This is why I came to the analysis of three management layers:
- operance as what is short term and determined by contracts. 
Activists often flame over that levelr which very user relevant.
- governance as what is middle term and determined by law and 
international agreement, These are sociatel issues. IGF, ACTA, etc. 
ICANN tries to build an operance/governance niche.
- adminance as what is the long term and standard driven, often 
conflicting with cultures (quality), affecting/blocking/helping 
civilisational (quantity) strategies.
I understand that the dynamic equilibrirum of the three of them 
(three bodies problem :-) ) decide of their (attractor) meaning .... 
in some sort of chaos !

Adminance permits governance, governance is the operance framework. 
What is important to operators is to know that Governance is going to 
influencef their operance framework. What is important to Governance 
is to make sure that adminance will not block its strategy due to 
technology constraints. Up to now, adminance was actually carried by 
IAB because the Internet was large/very-large technical system. It is 
now a universal ambient system and at the same time only a part of 
the digital ecosystem. This is why we need to get a digital ecosystem 
adminance forum, to foster technical innovation/evolution that the 
Governance can accept and Operance can economically live with.

IMHO this comes at the same time as a dramatic extension of the 
digital ecosystem due to the introduction of the architectural 
principle of subsidiarity (IDNA2008) which keeps the same code, but 
reverse its reading making the whole architecture people centric. 
IPv4/v6 make two internets, IDNA2008 make 300 to 20,000 lingual 
internets, ML-DNS classes and presentations make million internets.

>It's incredibly challenging to get done right, since
>you really need to interface both early on with requirements,
>and then periodically as an outcome is evolving; also, such
>interfaces need to be done at a level that is appropriate

Obviously the language must be adapted to Governance by users, with 
the hope that "lead users" may help being an interface between 
activists and ingineers. This is what I tried to initiate with the 
iucg at ietf.org mailing list (http://iucg.org). It helped introducing 
subsidiarity in the Internet architecture, but it still is quite 
non-active mailing list. Russ Housley authorised it and is on it. But 
it is mostly inactive. I think some the mail exchanges with Louis, 
Avri, etc. could find a good place with two kind of real propositions 
: civil society informed technical requirements, and 
non-"internal-internet" Governance originated technical suggestions.

There is a section 
http://iucg.org/wiki/Translating_Civil_Society_preocupations which 
could be a seed for such an endeavour.

>(i.e.
>it's not reasonable to email a 70 page detailed technical spec
>to civil society organizations and ask for input; you have to
>prepare briefing materials that explain the current likely
>outcome in lay terms)

Yes. However, I was never able to find a detail 70 page 
_complete_and_stable_ documentation of IPv6 :-).

>In IPv6, this did not happen with even with respect to the ISP
>& operator community, let along civil society organizations, and
>it shows in the outcome.

In addition, motivations are of the essence. The responsibility duty 
of ISP does not sell,  however the IDv6 (64 bits IID under IPv6 or 
others) could sell as an advantage, IPv4 on auction will sell quite 
well. For explaining that on the French IPv6 Task Force (as in charge 
of user relations) with the full support of Latif.... I was fired.

As a User I would be OK with LISP4/6, i.e. IPv4+IDv6 and then an IPvX 
intelligently managing the IPv4 numbering plan, in relation with 
telephone numbers, then a progressive evolution towards a complete 
new addressing, naming, routing review.

What Interplus/ML-DNS imply is a begining of the need to smartly consider it.

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