[governance] Inquiry for a new vision into the future of IGC

[Mawaki Chango]

Dear JFC,

Thank you for your elaboration, which I have read from first to last word
-- I am probably one of a few who take the trouble to read your messages
integrally. No offense but I am sorry to say this: I understand Foucault
(whom I can read and understand in original version without opening a
dictionary), including his translations in English, better than I
understand you.

The IGC membership/audience is not one of network architects. This thread
was not meant to discuss any particular substantive issue, nor was it
intended to propose an alternate architecture to the Internet as we know it
or to the IG ecosystem for that matter. That might come some other time.
But for now, we only seek to figure out how to give a new breath to this
Caucus and enable it to work again collaboratively and productively in
order to remain relevant through its contributions when it comes to public
policy, societal and social implications of Internet governance. For
everyone's information, please see below an excerpt of the IGC Charter
regarding its mission and objectives.

I would humbly advise you start from the TERMS of OUR question/problem and
try to guide us, using those terms and others as simple as those terms, to
the "promise land"  -- would be best if it is one that addresses our
concern -- even if such place may otherwise also be characterized through
your preferred architectonic lexicon. But starting from your universe and
its language really makes it quite impossible for most people to follow and
make something useful for them out of your contributions.

I hope this group will still benefit from your ideas in words that the
least engaged of us can still process.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Best regards,

Mawaki


*Mission*

The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum
for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society
contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to
provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion,
policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide
a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and
influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes.

*Objectives and Tasks*

The objectives and tasks of the IGC are to:

* Inform civil society and other progressive groups/actors on significant
developments impacting on Internet governance policies.
* Provide a context for open on line and, wherever and whenever possible,
face-to-face debate on the range of issues related to Internet governance
policies from a civil society perspective.
* Develop an on-going and outcome oriented structure. Create informal
relationships with various CS groups and individuals with a direct interest
in Internet governance policies, including those involved in human rights,
ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global electronic
commerce, access to knowledge, and security.
* Provide outreach to other CS groups who have an interest or a stake in
some aspect of Internet governance polices.
Act as the representative of itself, and other CS constituencies with
similar interests, generally or on specific issues, at various forums
involved with Internet governance policies.
* For the sake of the above, as well as for more general purposes, develop
common positions on issues relating to Internet governance policies, and
make outreach efforts both for informing and for creating broad-based
support among other CS groups and individuals for such positions.
* Anticipate, identify and address emerging issues in the areas of Internet
governance and help shape issues and perspectives in a manner that is
informed by the stated vision of the IGC.
* Collaborate with other stakeholders in the implementation of agreed
projects and policies towards better Internet governance.



On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 6:40 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

>  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
> <http://sv2b.net/index.php/Liste_d'initiatives_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/)
> 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/ed49e959/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