[governance] Inquiry for a new vision into the future of IGC
JFC Morfin
jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Jun 26 14:40:43 EDT 2014
Dear Mawaki,
let assume the WSIS achitectonic model (gov, private, international,
civil) is right. A serious MSism needs to proceed by
layers/planes/topics : politics, economy, technology, research, law,
culture, etc. For each of these layer/plane/topic each MS group need
to bring a balancing contribution that will contribute with its
particular abilities, interests, working results, dynamism, ideas, innovation.
From what we observe Govs are influenced by the USG, private sector
by ICC, international by UN, i.e. three diversified
layers/plans/topics leadership/facilitating dynamisms. Civil Society,
for various good and bad reasons (including lack of money, lack of
self-understanding of the differences between government of people,
sales to markets, NGO crowds, and global complex multitude) has done
quite nothing except focusing on human rights, mostly only talking about them.
As a result every human knows now how to be influenced by machines,
be commanded by govs, buy as a consumer, and wait for foreign help.
We have all forget that we are those who build the world, help each
others, are the govs and make the industry work. We forgot to
contribute only complaining.
How to correct this?
My understanding is that the WSIS model has three global and
specialized classes (govs, business and NGOs) and one local and
general one (Civil Society). We are at different granularity level.
To obtain global peace Govs want to coordinate, business to compete,
NGOs to help: we want to live in a resulting local peace we are to
organize and consolidate in our own framework.
If the others cannot network that peace, or need help, we have to
weave it at our own level: we the people.
This is why I think the solution is to come back to the network
fundamentals (it being ARPANET, Tymnet, Internet, UN, I*Core, etc.)
: the networking we use must fit the networking we are given. Govs,
business, International organizations try to build a top down
solution: the nework of networks. We need to use our networks in it.
This makes a simple model: the networks of the network of networks.
This has a simple name which is called coalitions, alliances,
peoples, nations, communities, collectivities, families, frienship,
projects, persons, closed-user-groups, class/groups, etc. etc. in
states, people and machines relations. In internet wording these are
"entangled VGNs" (virtual global networks, or "open closed gardens").
They are the way we chose to stabilize our individual or grouped
optimization of our digitalities networking.
You can call them the way you want if you are not pleased with the
term. The important thing for each of us is the way we can build,
govern and protect them..
From my personal experience, we are right now
- staturated at the states global VGN planes (US, CN, possibly Europe, etc.),
- we are fed-up by the private global systems (edge providers,
technology communities)
- and uncertain about the states and private national VGNs
(e-government, national franchising, e-commerce).
Also, we are not ready at individual planes (still a lot of Libre
solutions integration needed to ballance and interface with
institutional and commercial propositions).
The engaged necessary wining path
As a conquence, I think and try to experiment what is possible to do
at the intermediate level of quarters, villages, valleys, etc. Where
people share many different economic, political, cultural,
family,etc. interests. This is why I am more interested in the
"intelligent village on the information highways by everyone for
everyone", because as Gene Gaines puts it: "we are the internet". In
that context, the local VGN (virtual glocal network) become real
stakeholders with the same power as the US VGN, with their own
HomeRoot, SuperIANA, Happy-IPs. Not yet fully organized, tested, etc.
But we have a few months before they try to flood the planet with
their NTIACANN Love Story. In every plan preparation, a contingency
plan is necessary. It is mine, and I suggest that the more we are the
best it will be.
Sorry if my project is in French. But links are also in English. I
would like to fill this page:
http://sv2b.net/index.php/Liste_d%27initiatives_comparables_dans_le_monde
with links to local significative people's projects.
The conceptual modem is simple:
- a local physical meshed network offering fast and symetric
connections (M&M model: masters with masters),
- with SDN (software designed networking) connected through OPES
(open pluggable edge services),
- with a LISP IPv4 gateway relating with
--- other similar plateforms
--- or edge providers selected through the local/personal DNS
through different technology network systems.
--- or regular current internet (default).
Forget about ICANN, RIRs, IETF:
- they only are interested in low grade (current non neutral QoS),
- while our VGN layer (actually the missing OSI presentation layer
six) can support
--- local/global traffic optimization,
--- including CCN (content centered networking)
--- and active content intelligrams (intelligence)
This is not big conceptual deal, except that we have to coordinate a
myriad of solutions, make them compatible, etc. hence to be present
as MS "inter-users" (i.e. talking together and not only having
network access) in the normative assemblies. Standards are the way we
are governed. Time has come for norms to be part of political parties
projects. What is to be our society: power, money, machine, people centered ?
If we are not member of the resulting MS debate and running
code/leaving mode experimentation, never mind, the result will be the
same (digital world equilibrium) after some more delays and clashes.
Scientifically this is named "self-ordering criticality". "SOC" is
the way the world works. Criticalities can be benign when people are
smart, they can be wars when they are not.
jfc
At 14:01 26/06/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>Dear Members,
>
>This is an informal inquiry I would like to launch to hear from IGC
>members or list subscribers and collect your ideas about where we
>should go from here, as the Internet Governance Caucus.
>
>Particularly, please share your thoughts as to whether, in this
>context of IG or Information Society more broadly, civil society
>needs an analogue to what ICC BASIS
>(<http://www.iccwbo.org/advocacy-codes-and-rules/basis/>http://www.iccwbo.org/advocacy-codes-and-rules/basis/)
>is doing for business, and if so, what this would need to be like.
>
>Thanks for your cooperation.
>
>Mawaki
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140626/77e1574a/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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