AW: [governance] PINGO

Tue May 13 18:11:20 EDT 2014

At 18:13 13/05/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Jefsey 
><<mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com>jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>2. I discern an other achievement which is a clarifying failure. 
>They have not collectively understood yet that the internet is no 
>more for everyone (ISOC Vint Cerf's RFC 3271), but as Gene Gaines 
>puts it: it IS everyone.
>
>I am interested and thus curious. By this dimension you identify, 
>what would be your measure/criteria of success at NETmundial or in 
>any future Ig process?

Same as democracy but adapted to the double context of digitality and 
resulting polycracy. I certinaly need to explain :-)

As persons we now have an "extended" face of our personality which is 
our "digitaly", i.e. the empowerment of our digital interaction with 
the digital ecosystem. We have to build it as we do for our 
personality, except that at the end of the day our personalty (soul?) 
should remains the ultimate decision maker.

"Technical singularity" mongers like Raymond Kurzwell think 
otherwise: that our digitality will have to take the leadership, to 
fight machines' supremacy - and possibly be defeated. I think that 
this technical singularity does exist, is occurying and is the 
process we are submitted to (e.g. the IG debate) after the digital 
renormalization of our time (the practical experience of the ubiquity 
of quantum physic, digital, etc. discontinuities where our brain 
faked a continuity which called for an Euclidian nano-infinity).

However this singularity does not mean we will be supersed by the 
machine, but that we have succeded in creating the machines we 
absolutely needed to survive and master the complexity this digital 
renormalization has unveiled. I will add that this digital 
renormalization and the resulting access to complexity was necessary 
for us to scale to the increase of the size, density, resulting 
needs, and education of our society. And probably to address the 
earth pollution, energy and water issues, etc.

This is what the WSIS expressed in saying that the Information 
Society is to be "people centered", "à caractère humain" (and not 
"informatisée") in French, and very acurately "centrada en la 
persona" in Spanish. Personality is to control digitality. Not the 
other way around. But we certainly have to make sure this is true.

This digitality is therefore in charge of the digital face of our 
human relational space, I call our "Virtual Global Network". The way 
we chose to get, organize, optimize, standardize and use our digital 
energy. The same as our personality does for our mental energy and 
our body for our physical energy. This is why, the same as we want to 
be physically free in the four geographical dimensions (length, 
higth, depth, time) we want to be free in the four digital dimensions 
(data, metadata, syllodata, and the same shared time). Our intellect 
equally wants to be free in these seven dimensions as well as in its 
own conceptual dimensions. (NB, just in case: data are actualy data, 
capta and tracta -  this will be for another day; metadata are data 
on data; syllodata are data between linked data).

Now, we have  (at least) two new big problems we are confronted to, 
that Sao Paulo should have/has(?)clumsilly investigated:

1. for millenaries we have been spiritually bound to a culture and 
physically bound to a place. We have organized these bounds through 
our social contract with sovereign entities. We call it Nation-State. 
Mentally and physically we belong to a people, to a nation. We 
identified it as a human right as well as to participate in their 
governement (what they want to deprive us today through a 
multisatkeholderism that would partly reject governments). The NTIA 
position is a position, not an acceptable pre-requisite.

Yet our digitality is not bound to anything: digitally we are a 
multitude. Multitude is the technical term for boundless individuals. 
Many want to attach our boundlessness to their so-called RFC 6852 
"digital community" to get our share of the resulting so-called RFC 
6852 "huge bounty", in binding us to their business, products, edge 
services, operating system, choices, coalitions.

I am sorry, but I am and I want to stay digitally free.

I perfectly know they do not want our VGNs to emerge as stakeholders. 
This is too bad for them: they will have to because this is not only 
my right; this is my technical survival necessity. This is why I 
bootstrap the fsp4net coalition and suggest the VGNSO cooperation 
(Since you speak French you may want to have a look at 
http://sv2b.net, my gaullish e-village).

2. our mental and physical (i.e. brainware and hardware faces) have 
until been considered in order to identify and theorize information, 
and to indentify but not yet theorize communication. With digitality 
we only start discovering the third main (now computedly facilitated) 
component of our seven dimension world: intellition. Intellition is 
what makes sense. The semantic extension to mathematic processing 
based upon big data. Most of what we know was never told 
(communication) nor taught (information) to us: we infered it 
(intelligent inferenciation). The issue is that there are two big 
scale intellition processes we know very well: Press and PRISM. One 
is supposed to be protected and the other opposed. This is the 
problem of the liberty of thinking (infering) + liberty of speaking 
vs. the liberty of being. What Smith summarized in explaining: if you 
don't want something to be known: don't do it!

This raises huge questions. If we do not want to be subverted by the 
machine we have to educate the machine, and give it a human 
ethitechnic. It has to respect human privacy and its communications 
stay neutral.

To do that we have to teach the human universe to the machine and 
give it comportmental limits. This means to standardize a common 
architectony (i.e. basic vision of the universe) that everyone, 
culture, thought, etc, can freely parameter and be legally accounted 
responsible for. People must go to jail if their digitality (i.e. the 
digital face and periphery of their person or units of their VGN) has 
commited a crime they were able to prevent. The same, as if your dog 
bites your neighbohrs, or a tree in your garden falls on a car on the 
road. This is a totally new world, that Google, etc. would like to 
control through the datamass. Their non-regulated accumulation of 
data represents a bigger danger for humanity than atomic bombs. 
Considers a world flooded by accurate black-mailing spam. You do not 
think it possible? Please recall the AOL example: 
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/08/7433/

These are "ulterior" areas, where I expect my governement to protect 
me from wrong innovation. By the way, this is a constituational 
obligation in France, both for the state and for informed citizens, 
under the precautionary principle. Internet informed, independent, 
intelligent IUsers.

jfc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140514/aed50148/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