[governance] For information

[Jefsey]

At 13:03 16/03/2015, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>On 14/03/2015 11:26, Jefsey wrote:
> > At 20:06 13/03/2015, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> >> Dear Jefsey:
> >> You appear to have forgotten to list the 13th bullet point (the 13th
> >> Community) that is the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) which acts
> >> in the best interests of Internet end users.
> >
> > I certainly know that this is what you wish and try to do. However,
> > unfortunately, claiming acting in the best interest of Internet end
> > users does not mean directly representing them. Lead users (i.e. the
> > permissionless innovation main potential source) and civil sociey are
> > not represented either (neither directly nor indirectly).
>
>I'd be interested in hearing how you propose representing 3Bn people.

Dear Olivier,

Sorry being late in responding. Lot of problems with ... the 
internet. I have two ISP, but a single IP ???

as you know I am an icannoclast architectonician (the 
inter-achitecture substratum) diktyologist (the network science). 
Also an IETF admirer however, until Russ Housley, an oponent to the 
IAB procrastination. This has a practical reason: my ambition is a 
local user's control on his/her own global digitality.

1. NSA fired me in 1986 because I was in charge of services 
innovation at the de facto international PSN technological monopoly. 
My ambition was not NSA compatible: their job is that the control is 
by the military - and the military industrial establishment obeys (we 
[Tymnet Inc.] had been acquired by McDD - now Boeing).

2. I have carried the ICANN/IANA job for the international PSN for 8 
years. As a service to national monopolies. As a "sub-" monopoly 
(like did Postel)  it works; as a "super-" monopoly it cannot (as 
ICANN is trying) without a sovereign anchor point as the NTIA or the 
FCC. The internet and the DNS are distributed (35000 CLASSes + 
private CLASSes = infinity) and therefore intrinsically competition. 
Wanting to control it as a Commercial Consumer Command cannot 
technically deliver.

When I say that Russ changed that: he did it through OpenStand/RFC 
6852 and the Draft I just appealed. His approach is correct from a 
pragmatic point of view but will fail from a political point of view, 
unless there is an architectonical adjustment we have to find. His 
single point of failure is at the end of 
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/01/taking-a-step-towards-iana-transition/: 
"The NTIA must then consider and approve the proposal."

I am sorry this could have been OK for the US Militaries (their job 
is US Defense) ... before, not for all the other IUsers, US ones 
included. The reason why is that for everyone the networks MUST work, 
and be reliable, sure and secure. No one, no multistakeholder group 
can be technically (not considering politically) trustable enough anymore.

Look, I was involved in the PSN (it took 41.5 years for the FCC to 
adopt the "PSN" word Louis Pouzin gave to the INWG) deployment a few 
months before the Internet project was even introduced, etc.. I 
incorporated France at Large as a non-profit gathering the year 2000's 
French candidates to ICANN (that ICANN refused in ALAC because we had 
no banking account - i.e. we set-up us free from money influence-, I 
was in the Joop Teemstra's IDNO team, I still have the excell table 
of the 1200 voting members of our icannatlarge site which partly led 
to ALAC. I still own the atlarge.org domain name. etc.

 From all this I certainly claim having some expertise about the 
internet intelligent/lead use by individual, medium, large and 
national users. However, I never claimed to represent them, nor to 
act in the "best interest" of all of them. All I can do is to advise, 
and guess if a solution will stand over time.


The problem we face is post-democratic.


For a while I thought it could be polycratic. But I eventually found 
that what I described is actually holocratic. All comes from the 
Pouzin's Paradigm (the network of networks); the Universe is a 
polyade - a monade of monades, to be understood as a fractal polyade 
of polyades, with a special category: the core monades. This is 
purely architectonic (i.e. you can have several architectures to 
address the problem).

Two architectonies (architectonic models) have been documented by the 
WSIS and by Russ Housley and his fellow chairs, at the time, of IAB, 
IEEE, ISOC and W3C.

1. the WSIS consensually committed in Tunis to a people centric 
esthetic for the Information Society.
2. the multistakeholder SDO panel discovered that the "huge bounty" 
realized by the global economy resulted from a working normative 
paradigm "where the economics of global markets, fueled by 
technological advancements, drive global deployment of standards 
regardless of their formal status".

Ethics is the acknowledge way to reach an esthetic. Here we have to 
consider ethitechnics. i.e. the way to technically organize thing for 
them to be easier/cheaper to use in an ethical manner than otherwise.

My position is that the WSIS produced an omnistakeholder consensus 
which is an architectonical MUST; while the OpenStand 
muiltistakeholder consensus is an architectonical SHOULD. The 
historical, political, economical importance of the USG (as well as 
Europe and BRICS) can be considered as MAYs.

The way decisions are actually networked is as follows : people 
become aware, they discuss, they chose their own solutions, they 
adapt then through mutual experimentation (sometimes under influence 
- the mission of the IETF [RFC 3935] is to "influence the way people 
design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the 
Internet work better" through their documents) - and from this an 
operational consensus emerges.

What we can do is to contribute to the discussion, to develop our own 
solutions (RFC 6852: this is the emergence by coopetition among 
global communities), to embody them in our VGNs (virtual glocal 
networks) and mutually explore/negotiate/adapt their best 
interoperation depending on our different material/immaterial focusses.

As fas I am concerned, after gospelling this for years (discussion), 
I think time has come (due to changes in the relative 
market/political weight and awareness between military, commercial, 
commercial and personal areas; cf. WCIT vote) for many of us to 
concernt and develop our own architectural solutions, not to leave 
that only to the GAFA, USCC, ICANN, BRICS communities.

My personal approach is simple: I call it a "mecagerm" - i.e. the 
germ of a mecanism that can be refined, discussed, etc. and that will 
develop by itself when there are enough interested people. The 
adopted form right now should be an IUser Cooperative Company at the 
Catenet layer (below the Internet/NDN/SDN, etc architecture - i.e. 
the whole that is more that the sum of all the digital network of 
networks of shared local resources) with a metaphorical focus on the 
Missing Layer Six (Presentation Layer: security, intelligence, 
formats, languages) most probably easily implemented as a 
Virtual-OPES [RFC 3835].

The "civil society" noise is only disruptive and a way (like the 
Domain Name "industr"y) to make them believe they are important to 
the network and create a blablasystem defense (with its travel around 
alibi anchorage) for the true political/industrial/military game - 
where those who count are not those who are heard ...

Cheers.
jfc













>As for civil society, members of civil society organisations are
>extensively participating in the working group. Again there, I think it
>is wise to say they act in the best interest of their community.
>
>The term "representing" has, IMHO, been used too liberally in recent
>years with self appointed people "representing" others who do not know
>anything about their representation.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Olivier


-------------- 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