[governance] definition of "governance" (was Re: talking vs acting)

[JFC Morfin]

At 18:11 31/08/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> > At 14:45 31/08/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> >> 2) Is the talking which is being done directed at the objective of
> >> figuring out which governance actions are in the public interest (in
> >> the sense of some reasonable interpretation of what is the public
> >> interest)?
> > Even before defining what is the public interest, the problem here is
> > to define what is a governance action, so we know if the debate is
> > credible enough or not.

Dear Norbert,

>I think that in the Internet context, the definition of governance is
>essentially a solved problem:

Here is our main difference then :-)

1. I am not much interested in the now defunct internet (cf. CIRA)
2. I am like you: I am not fully satisfied with the definition of the 
governance concept, per se, and because it did not prevent the death 
of the internet.

>    Definition: Internet governance is the development and application
>    of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and
>    programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.

IMHO you are missing the governance's true role which is neither the 
use (this is the short term operance's mission) nor the care of the 
evolution (that is concertance long term architectonic 
responsibility), but the mid-term management of the internet. The 
error politicians made in addition is confusing the web with the 
internet, and the internet with the human information society as 
extended by digitalization (digisphere).

The internet is just a tool. For a certain time it was the core of 
the information society development. RFC 6852 and PRISM show that 
this time is over. The internet as some dreamt it is realy dead. 
There are three technologies: information (collecting data), 
communications (transporting data) and intellition (intelligently 
using information to infer data one will not need to collect and 
transport). The intellition performance is the John Von Neumann's 
"singularity". Intellition has three dimensions: data, metadata (data 
about data) and syllodata (data between data, they are the 
intelligence - Doug Engelbart introduced them through their hyperlinks type).

What is discussed when talking of the "death of the internet" are two 
changes of paradigm.


1. The main change is the human creep into reality outside of the 
Plato's cave, through intelligence with the bots' assistance. 
Experimental science gave us data, we share them through 
communications (round the world or throughout processors) and extend 
then through intellition, in applying intelligence to communicated informaton.

Einstein explained us why we are in a 4D world (as a result of 
Poincaré findings on the n-body reality). Snowden using PRISM and 
Raymond Kurzweil joining Google 
(http://www.wired.com/business/2013/04/kurzweil-google-ai/) are just 
showing us that we have actually entered already the 7D singularity - 
tuching reality as Plato and Aristotle expected it, but had not the 
science and the mathematic uncompletion to demonstrate it. Plenty of 
people worked hard on the problem for 2400 years!


2. The second change is OpenStand which adapts the internet 
standardization process to this new situation and abandon the general 
leadership of three stewardship layers. These three layers were 
defined in RFC 3935 (IETF mission). The IETF mission was: "to 
influence those who

- design (long term, architectural concordance now becoming 
architectonically dependent).
- use (short term operance, claimed by OpenUse)
- manage (mid-term governance)

the internet in order to make it work better" (general common 
interest, never actually defined, now pragmatically reduced to make 
it adequate to the markets).

>    Note: Governments, civil society and the private sector are all
>    involved in Internet governance in various roles.

You are missing International organizations in the 4-lateral MSist governance.

>(This is a slight rephrasing of the "working definition" from WGIG which
>is also in para 34 of the Tunis agenda; the change which I'm proposing
>is to move the words "by governments, the private sector and civil
>society, in their respective roles" to a Note and to change “respective
>roles" to "various roles". My reason for proposing this change is that
>the terms "governments", "civil society" and "private sector" are all
>hard to define precisely, and whether they should have precisely defined
>"respective roles" is not so clear either.)

The WGIG definitions are just that. Definition by a group of people 
of the former paradigm trying to adapt to the new one, i.e. the 
post-singularity one (as per Kurzweil, Google pays to make it heppens 
through the language use - hence my opposition to the Unicode/Google 
control on languistic RFCs). They did a good job. We have to complete 
it as we know progressively more and better.

Take care.
jfc




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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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