[governance] definition of "governance" (was Re: talking vs acting)
JFC Morfin
jefsey at jefsey.com
Sat Aug 31 22:48:57 EDT 2013
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 ârespective
>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
More information about the Governance
mailing list