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

[JFC Morfin]

At 23:34 26/06/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>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.

Dear Mawaki,
This was an answer to you and to the very few who take the trouble of 
reading my mails.  I suppose this will be the case of this response. 
50 years from now, some historian doctoral student may make some 
money at being the second reader in publishing a "They known!" thesis.

The problem we face is not what the people may discuss (what creates 
the problems to solve) but the reality they should first comprehend 
(in order to solve them).

>The IGC membership/audience is not one of network architects.

Correct.

And this is a good thing because before you have any use for 
architects you need architectonicians. The fathest IAB went into that 
direction (together with IEEE, IETF, ISOC, W3C, further joined by 
RIRs, and ICANN in Montevideo) is the RFC 6852, the "OpenStand modern 
paradigm for standards" statement which is an abdication of the 
network architects and engineers into the merchants hands (the ICC 
people you refer to).

The IGC is supposed to be a membership/audience of civil users. The 
question is to know users of what: blablabla or reality. Blablabla is 
what you can indefinitly talk about until your and all your 
interlocutors' death. Reality is what you cannot change and we all 
have to live with.

>This thread was not meant to discuss any particular substantive issue,

You mean just keep blablablaing?

>nor was it intended to propose an alternate architecture to the 
>Internet as we know it

I am sorry, there is no alternate architecture to reality. Only its 
understanding and you may win. Or its misunderstanding and you are 
sure to lose.

>or to the IG ecosystem for that matter.

An ecosystem by definition is the reality life. It cannot have an 
alternative. All you can do is to make it more confortable to live in 
if you accept its reality, and less confortable if you deny that reality.

>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

You cannot be relevant if you base yourself on misunderstandings. 
Everyone having a small DNS experience knows about the importance of the roots.

>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.

Correct. And this community currently fails in fullfiling its charter.

>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.

Sorry, but I think you misread the terms of your charter. Here is the 
crux (please see the comment to the charter quote). Most probably 
because the reality has changed since it was written but this went 
unnoticed yet.

Since you say you read Foucault, I consider Antoinette Rouvroy 
http://directory.unamur.be/staff/arouvroy as the most brillant 
Foucaldian academic. I share with her many concerns she expresses in 
her societal legalism/institutional approach. In particular about 
"algoritmic governance": except a mail of mine I only found one 
single IGC quote of Francesca Mussiani (another good civil society 
academic): http://adam.hypotheses.org/1791.

That's all for a Caucus on the IG!!!

Please note that Francesca's paper begins as follows: "Algorithms are 
increasingly often cited as one of the fundamental shaping devices of 
our daily, immersed-in-information existence". Not on this mailing 
list yet. This IS the problem you want to addess. The NTIA has 
demanded ICANN to build a new algorithm (that technically and humanly 
cannot work).

>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.

Sure. I am a seaman. If you want to use a lawyer's jargon at sea, I 
am sure it will make impossible for everyone to use your 
contributions not to sink.

>I hope this group will still benefit from your ideas in words that 
>the least engaged of us can still process.

This is why the first thing from Plato to Clausewitz and many others 
is said to commonly understand what one talks about.

1. There are two intellectual ways to obtain this:

- for the interlocutors to negotiate a common understanding.
- for the interlocutors to first work on a common referent.

Most of the cultures and their linguistic vectors have adopted the 
fist approach. The best at it are probably Poetry, English and 
Chinese cultures.

French and Sciences are probably the only ones having adopted the 
second approach. Probably the most advanced synthesis in that area 
(which may reach the core of architectonics [see below]) is Mioara 
Murgur Schachter who comes from Quantum-Physics). This is the real 
core of the debate. However I agree that this is NOT the best way for 
"the least engaged of us" to process with the problem at hand.

2. Fortunately there is also a pragamatic way to commonly understand 
what one talks about.

It is proven experimentation. The civil society inclusion in the IETF 
(IUCG) has adopted it and slightly extended it from the David Clark: 
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough 
consensus, running code and leaving mode".

That pragmatic way has a practical recipe that is the core of every 
communication: "Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what 
you accept" (Jon Postel, RFC 1122). It is in one single attitude the 
experimental, and the intellectual conservative referent and 
negotiating approaches attitude.


Now, you will permit me to repeat the synthesis of the problem we 
inherited from Aristotle and technology:
- architectonics is the art of understanding reality,
- as such it is the most important thing for politics
- which is the art of commanding to free people.
- The change is that free people's political contract has extended to 
digital interconnection. This leads to what RFC 6852/OpenStand 
paradigm describes as "global communities, benefiting humanity"

This antropologic change based on "bots" artificial organs becoming 
necessary to the survival of humanity is called "singularity".

You therefore can either discuss it:
1. in using pre-digital logomachy
2. as an academic research
3. based upon pragamatic experimentation

Being fed-up with (1) and understanding the limits of (2) when it 
comes to most of the concerned people, I advocate (3).

I think the following Paul Oliver text may help you understanding 
why. "Foucault devoted considerable time to researching the impact of 
institutions on society and the lives of individuals. He was 
interested in the power and influence that they exerted, and also in 
the fact that some people simply could not avail themselves of the 
services provided by institutions because they could not understand 
the systems within which they operated. In such cases institutions 
can deprive people of their personal freedom and autonomy. In 
circumstances where individual citizens cannot successfully interact 
with institutions, then they can easily become alienated from them, 
and moreover alienated from society in general."

This creates the situation where societal-contract-less persons from 
neither a people, nor a crowd, but a "multitude". No one yet has 
however tried the polycratic (the correct term you have to define) 
problem of governing an internally connected multitude. However, I am 
sure no one will succeed if he/she/we do not identify the problem as 
such, an try to first understand it.

>Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Idem.

>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,

Your position consists in censoring the Internet governance issues 
you do not think the others are able to discuss. This is embarassing 
when they are fundamental. This makes the entire Caucus useless.

>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.

You therefore deprieve this Caucus of the practical capacity (proven 
experience) to advocate relevant policy process.

>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.

The reality evolution is the firth thing people are to be made aware. 
When ISOC, IEEE, IAB, IETF, W3C, RIRs state there is an evolution, 
explain why and document the need to consider the resulting "huge 
bounty", I feel this is worth some technical, political, industrial, 
cvil society information.

>* 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.

The change is such that an open online description by concerned 
decision makers and responding users should be considered as 
mandatory. A debate like 1net discuss by the US incubement should be 
matched by a "0net impact" debate.

>* 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.

I see relations with human rights. I am denied field ICT4D. You 
propose a parallel to trade and electronic commerce but on an 
asymetric technical basis. A discussion on digital knowledge is 
urgent. Where is discussed true "security"?

>* Provide outreach to other CS groups who have an interest or a 
>stake in some aspect of Internet governance polices.

The work a very few of us engaged (fsp4net boot strap) is rebuked 
because we do not have the same language.

>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.

I am afraid that the whole thing is to advocate a very slow pace is 
anticipating and identfying emerging issues. I understand that you 
want to regulate the path. I am myslef slow when compared to the 
flood of power and money invested to enslave us. You asked my 
opinion. I gave it. You do what you want with it. This is your 
priviledge. Everyone must die. One may influence the date :-)

>* Collaborate with other stakeholders in the implementation of 
>agreed projects and policies towards better Internet governance.

You know, at the flood time Noah had some hard time to even convince 
his family ....

Cheers !
jfc

(PS. I don't take myself for Noah :-) .... But what is for you if I 
was? This is the reason why one makes contingency plans....)





>On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 6:40 PM, JFC Morfin 
><<mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com>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'initiatives_comparables_dans_le_monde>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/) 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:
>>      <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>> 
>><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>> 
>><http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      <http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate this email: 
>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>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/20140627/74a8b938/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