[discuss] Internet Governance PDPs and Audits
jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Feb 20 12:32:11 UTC 2014
W3C is a member of OpenStand. ICANN joined in Montevideo where IEEE
was not present. This created an unballance:
- everyone but ICANN agreed upon an economic vision of IG in order to
define technology development paradigm. However, it did not defined
who will be the ultimate decision taker for OpenStand (i.e. the whole
digital technology), what IAB/ISOC is for the network part of that
technology. This is the reason of my appeal as users and Govs cannot
be bound by merchants' decisions.
- everyone but IEEE agreed upon a political approach of an IG revamp.
However, this attempt is not based upon a serious technical
consideration of the technological convergence needed to reduce the
UNIX "superuser" dogma (i.e. the IEEE machine "root" and the ICANN
The difficulty was to make their concerns converge (trough a kind of
multiple regression), and see if we could insert our IUser/CS
concerns also converge, so a "root" cause analysis
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_cause_analysis) they could
understand could be attempted (cf. 8D
1. on the IEEE concerns side:
My analysis is that the digital thinking regression consists in
puting IEEE and IETF concerns in continuity (W3C is some kind of an
example). The architectural place for computers and networks to be in
continuity is the internet technology missing layer six. The easiest
way of achieving is in conceptually extending posix to netix, i.e. a
single command set for everything as demanded by a global distributed
2. on the ICANN concerns side:
The problem of ICANN is that they result from an single governement
contract while they want to be global. This means a global extension
of national sovereignty. This was a good for all as long as that Gov
could be more or less neutral, its influence protecting us against
crime. This is no more possible because the posix technology is not
snoop proof, its vulnerability is at the network/posix dicontinuity.
This increases the risks of cyberwar and the surveillance capacities.
The USG has chosen to use this in orer to protect its citizens rather
than the everyone.
This is its job, but it means the end of the e-sovereignty limbo.
E-sovereignty cannot be limited to the physical boundaries of
Westphalian Nation-States. This means that the other States national
soverignty has also to become global. This was the essence of my
initial ISO 3166 based reporting on the namespace unique single
reality (1978/86) This is expressed through VGNs (Virtual Global
Networks). I held the concept for years because the world was not
prepared to 192 ICANNs by 192 Govs: crime would have been the first
to take advantage from it. Now, after Snowden, the degree of
political digital awareness has reached a sufficient level to insure
us an ambiant protection from criminal creeps.
Now, once we have VGNs and presentation Layer six netix continuity at
least conceptually with us, we can use MS enhanced cooperation
organizations in order to organize the whole digisphere ecosystem,
probably as a World Digisphere Organization where we will have to
normatively accomodate multilaterality and MSism among Govs,
Business, and informed users, each of them having its own political,
technical, cultural, legal contributors.
At 20:51 19/02/2014, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>Over the past couple of months, I have watched how alot of the
>comments are ICANN related. I feel that for the most part ICANN is a
>continuously morphing entity that is seriously committed to
>inclusion, participation from diverse stakeholders and whose Policy
>Development Processes are open to comment, replies etc.
>There are some other organisations such as W3C who have working
>groups that are known to have only 6 days comment period etc.
>Whilst organisations differ in how they organise themselves, there
>are aspects of what they do that require minumum threshholds of
>accountability and best practice.
>It might be useful to determine a benchmark via ratings.These
>ratings could be carried out independently.
>Regardless of the institution, something worthwhile looking at are
>some sort of high level principles that can be used to audit or to
>be considered best practice for organisations so they can be rated.
>I would be interested to see studies commissioned in this area
>pertaining to issues of accessibility as it relates to meaningful
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss