[governance] [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead

[JFC Morfin]

At 12:55 02/09/2013, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>This is all an interesting topic for discussion. Let's hope it will 
>not be diluted..
>
>>2. the favored one is favored as more scalable in using the current 
>>routing technology. Is that not an incitation to statUS-quo and an 
>>opposition to R&D (this is the matter being discussed in this 
>>thread)? Does the IANA political control by the NTIA affect this position?
>
>I have an issue with your point 2.

You will note that I have no point 2, but a question. This question 
is not about the internet technology, but about the routing strategy 
and the attitude towards innovation in that area. So I go through 
your response.

>The Internet is what it is and enjoys the success it has primarily 
>because, it does not *force* anyone to incur any costs they do not 
>wish to have.

Let admit this point in order to follow your reasoning. However I 
foundamentally disagree with it (and this is my main point): 
statUS-quo is precisely against architectonic R&D that could reduce 
the costs and increase the internet effilience, but it would also 
certainly modify the market shares and the operational controls. It 
would introduce many new operators.  It would probably shake Google 
end be detrimental to NSA and to the ICANN industry.

>Therefore, The Internet has always favored "what works" -- one way, 
>or another. The desire to present this as an outcome of someone's 
>political advances is just wishful thinking in my opinion --- but I 
>understand this is typical for politics.

This would call for an entire review of the IETF, ICANN, involved 
SDOs and WSIS technical proceedings.

>If that (undefined) R&D takes place, under as I understand the 
>political guidance of various .. let's call them "interested 
>parties" -- then this will surely result in additional costs imposed 
>on everyone in Internet, as routing datagrams is Internet's core functionality.

hmm? Do you mean that all what has been developped between 1971 and 
1983, and further (?) that belong to the care of the Internet 
technology has been developped by un-interested parties?

What is actually interesting is that this R&D takes place everyday 
(FLOSS). What actually costs (200 billions a year) is the black 
stakholder category no one ever talks about (why?). Making internet 
crime more difficult with a more architecturally secure architecture 
(please do talk of DNSSEC, RPKI, etc. patches, we are among 
professionnals) might save upto $ 100 a year to each of us.

>To give just two examples: after a lot of research and 
>experimentation, who useful technologies were developed for 
>improving Internet's security: RPKI and DNSSEC. RPKI is all about 
>making the routing protocols more secure and dependable and DNSSEC 
>is respectively improving DNS: both core components of what The Internet is.

Yes. RPKI and DNSSEC are two long political histories, negiciated by 
employees of US  or allied countries, contractors or sub-contractors 
(how many CISCO RFC a year)? Civil Society has never been allowed to 
participate, and actually been interested in participating because 
these technologies are architectonical violations justified by the 
demand of centralized control, architecturally a way to curb 
operators, and technically inadequate to civil users - or even 
opposed to their interests as the NSA shows the possibility.

Please again, do not protest. We both are in the DNS game, myself 
from the very begining. We know that we know.

>Yet, because both impose additional costs on participants, they are 
>not universally available or not even accepted.

Not every RFC is a standard.

>Despite this, the Internet still continues to function.

Sorry, I miss the point. Or is it that despite many things, the world 
continue to sruvive. What you and me wanted until RFC 6852 came out 
was to make the Internet work better. This still is the case for us, 
while OpenStand have accepted that their priority actually was to 
make the internet sell better. Now, this has clarified we can better 
talk and cooperate.

>So, even if these is political opposition to any R&D (1), fact is it 
>does not matter. The "opposition" in Internet is based on purely 
>practical and cost reasons. The Internet *is* different from other 
>networks in this regard and this apparently scares all the 
>"interested parties".

I have somme difficulty conceiving the internet as opposing people. 
There are (cf. RFC 6852 which documents the reason why the internet 
has developped) global communities gwhich are genuinely or 
artificially motivated to buy services from vendors. There is a 
vendors de coopetition within the statUS-quo architectural, economic, 
political and defense framework orchestrated by States (mainly USG) 
and telecom operators (price of the bandwidth), RIRs (price of the IP 
address) and ICANN (price of domain name). This results in an 
economic model of which the digisphere is dependent through the 
internet architectural model.

This model is resilient to a point: as every other system it is 
erroded by the risks resulting form its efficient use (cf. 
sustainability curve - if you do not know about it, you can get an 
idea with the following quote "While efficiency is highly appreciated 
in our world, it's not very good for the sustainability of a system 
if it goes too far." )

>(1) - everyone of the "interested parties" is very much in favor of 
>R&D, as long as it is their very own R&D, resulting in their very 
>own IPR and control. This is in the core of the reason why those 
>parties can never agree.

Yes. This is life. One idea to correct it is that everyone is 
supposed equal. This is democracy. But there always are some who 
manage to be more equal than others. This is politics. There might be 
a way to concert in order not to work through general laws but in 
subsidiarity where most of the multiple stakeholders could be 
satisfied . This is polycracy. As in nature. This is what we are about.

>As for your point 3... it is interesting, that after you cannot 
>convince the Internet population to accept your behavior models, you 
>go to ITU, believing that private-Government structure can do 
>something about it? They could, if they owned the Internet, as they 
>did all the communication networks before, including those 
>experiments in France.
>Is this your understanding of "civil society"?

My understanding of civil society is an equal overeign capacity to 
negociate with every other stakeholder, it being ITU or Gov You are a 
new commer in this long history and the commercial owner of .bg, if I 
m right. As such you are a professional member of the ICANN community 
and have a marketing oriented vision of the DNS (I was quite 
interested at the time when you reported you new .bg space 
oraganization to open the market for multiple registrars - It was 
fully in line with your vision of an internet where we try to give 
more for the same price).

However, I was with Peter de Blanc when he told Mike Roberts not to 
force us to resort to our nuclear arsenal. This is the way things 
happens between soverign allies engaged in a multilateral endeavor.

>>- yes, the architecture of the Internet has remained the same since 
>>its very first day (1.1.83) due to the political/commercial 
>>opposition from the statUS-quo.
>
>You imply the US had supported the development of the public 
>Internet. They have not. The US actually tried very hard to prevent 
>it, as did most other governments.

This is an opinion. As such I will respect it. But as a former 
participant to the CCITT US delegation I am not sure I can agree with it ...

>>The IGF mission is to help enhanced cooperation projects toward the 
>>emergence of new technologies for the Information society. At this 
>>stage, there are two possible sources of such an emergence:
>>
>>- the private commercial stakeholders category through OpenStand.
>>- the Civil Society through an OpenUse coalition/cooperation effort 
>>that I support.
>
>One question remains unanswered here: did the typical Internet 
>participant ask for your "help"? Do they really need it? Do they care?

Good question.
- I think you have the answer. The Internet has always favored "what 
works" -- one way, or another.
- I suggest it also discriminates on the cost of "what works".

I will give you an example: something I target is free DNs that work 
for the cusers (civil users), paid by the commercial sector in a 
people centered information society were people purchase from the 
commercial vendors.

>>Actually, we can help one another. This is why we are trying to 
>>keep and encourage an open and positive dialog. Both sides fear 
>>rogue and confusing elements, especially on the Civil Side because 
>>we are far younger and weaker as a structure and global community 
>>and due to the diversity of the FLOSS culture
>
>You mean, the "private commercial stakeholder" and the "Civil 
>Society" can help each other? Sure, you both can.

This is correct: you and me.

>What about those who are the Internet?

We both are. Some are national/societal development oriented (govs), 
others are money oriented (commercial sector), others are people 
development oriented (civil society), others are global development 
oriented (intl. organizations) other are illegal money oriented 
(crime). All of them equally belong to the digisphere, caring about 
their different stakes.

Cheers.
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