[discuss] Clarifications on some recent Changes

Thu Feb 6 01:51:10 UTC 2014

Michel;
:-) Guess which country it is that you are alluding to.

Your scenario is quite likely. And then?

1. Politicians

We want the world to address its problems. There are many ways of 
doing so, and diplomats are made for that. They are using us? So what?

I am not worried about whether you are right. I am just worried about 
whether we are wrong (I think we will remedy your "no"'s). What I see 
is that politics is teaching us a lesson. They make Sao Paulo. and 
us? What is our "MS IG" doing?

2. Techies

Techies, with the help of ISOC, have done a great thing during the 
last three years. They published RFC 6852 and allied. They prepared 
Netix. This is not perfect - and this is why my appeal to ISOC is 
pending - because:

- they did not considered the Layer Six/Intelligent Use Interface 
standardization, in addition of the W3C. This will hamper their 
EDI/ONS deployment.
- they only took care of one single type of economy  the market 
oriented one, and forgot the planned one (I would say institutional) 
and the Free (Libre) one. The internet proceeds from the three: this 
was the lesson of RFC 3869.

RFC 6852 needs to be endorsed by the IUCG at IETF, but this is not 
possible if there is not an ultimate common MS decision appeal 
process: when computers and people conflict, people's long-term 
interest is to prevail. This is what the French Constitution imposes 
on us French people and makes it an obligation for us to fight for, 
under the name of precautionary duty within the context of the 
principles of subsidiarity and substitution (RFC 1958 and 5895 show 
the internet architecture does respect).

3. Ourselves

What we should want to see emerging from Sao Paulo and further 
meetings is some open MS addition to what you explain. I mean, an 
economy where the three
(1) free-market,
(2) academic-&-planned-institutional, as well as
(3) users-FLOSS
economies concert together; and their needs, capabilities, and 
technologies network together.

4. Our sociotechnical priority?

 From the debate on the namespace  and the near-consensus on a broad 
MS-administered name space as the best and most stable solution, I 
conclude that we need and might agree upon a  kind of software and 
knowledge concerted economy licence, so that all the networked forces 
can work together and reach a "French globalité",  i.e. more than the 
sum of all the contributions in every area, due to the negentropy of 
the MS synergy.

I think for a long time to such a license. It would permit to jointly 
capitalize on "gray cells" rather than to conflict on financial 
differences, without removing commercial competition, free 
contributions to the common interest nor limiting technical and 
societal innovation. Let us leave politicians find a political patch, 
and let us try to build a sociotechnical basis that could weld that patch.

This is probably our challenge. To make sure that our society is in 
tune with the closed, open, and free technology triplet that we 
concert and the MS governance of their use that we want to organize. 
We need to come up with what I would call a co-license for the 
development of an economy concerting the Libre, institutions, and 
commerce ("CLIC/DECLIC"). We have so many lawyers and techies on this 
list that we should be able to help networking a text that could be 
acceptable to everyone (cf. RFC 3271).

Actually, this istarts from a full consideration of the technical, 
academic and open-code/lead-users communities. And to try to concert 
their economies to ease the use and the governance of what they produce.

jfc

>On 17:22 05/02/2014, Michel Gauthier said:
>Jorge,
>
>if you were in charge of a national internet governance strategy 
>wishing to conciliate your political position with the position of 
>opponents so the WCIT disagreements do not impact the World Trade 
>development through EDI, ONS, RFIDs, etc. what would you do?
>
>You would assign a group of three people and staff to the 
>operational conduct of the strategy. Trying to find a middle ground 
>for an agreement among the opposing leaders (i.e. US/OECD and BRICS) 
>through a pseudo-grassroots process, so no one is to change its 
>political public position while everyone may agree on a technical arrangement.
>
>1st need: a middle-man to galvanize  a (2. need) grassroots middle-ground.
>
>The middle-man is ICANN. It joined the OpenStand ISOC bandwagon in 
>Montevideo, making sure that the now allied I*technicians would 
>follow (ARIN supports but remotely: they have nothing to lose).
>
>ICANN jumped in Brasilia. The momentum of the announcement permitted 
>a "third party" (AFRINIC) creation of the grass-roots process. 650 
>people from everywhere biting the "MS" bait , plus the three men in 
>the back (the membership of the mailing list is quite interesting to 
>study, who is here and who is not). These six hundred people 
>definitely ARE the I*intelligentsia of the Internet.
>
>Now you have to drive the process. This is not that easy: you have 
>the money and political power, these people have the gray cell and 
>the user power.
>
>So, you have to capitalize on the image of an MS democratic uprising 
>an open minded Brazil is sympathetically good for the Falls 
>election). But you must keep these people under control (they start 
>now about asking for a Wiki: JFC had already introduced one and 
>proposed the Brazilian side to co-manage it - what they had 
>dutifully ignored): danger. MS is a bait not something to manage the IG).
>
>Therefore, you address this nicely: they want a wiki? Well you give 
>you a forum. You know that the debate will focus on how stupid this 
>relationally is, how it technically works, etc. extinguishing the danger.
>
>By that time you also had started to institutionalize the mailing 
>list. i.e. making it readable by politicians, through a report on 
>this unbelievably important grassroots MS surge one MUST consider 
>(with the Telcos family- every side need their support). The report 
>is on what you want them to want (the Louis XVI's register of 
>grievance) and what they continue to say, through a weekly report to 
>Chanceries now able to record the multiple, sometime contradictory, 
>channels they have now built because THEY think there are various 
>levels in transparency. This will make the inputs brought to the 
>attention of the ministerial level meeting by the "MS chosen" 
>committees (during the creation brouhaha).
>
>The problem now is just to keep the people's grey cell as far as 
>possible from self criticality, so the whole things does not 
>blow-up. In particular no "HomeRoot", no "Netix", no "MS IG Wiki": 
>the grassroots round is to come to an end. Begins the diplomatic 
>round: the 11 other countries to sit on the "table chair". These 
>people want to know who they are talking to (real persons and civil 
>agents) one can trace through their forum registration 
>(dic://nsa.gov) and get a passport copy. As I reported it I have 
>been informed that some e-mails where on the /1net registration black-list.
>
>Very interesting, as you say. A very well  done job. Nearly as well 
>as Snowdenia.
>
>Who are the three non disclosed members of the /1net mailing list? 
>Probably archives and who else ?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140206/97e772fe/attachment.html>