[discuss] shifts in IANA/accountability discussion: your thoughts?

Thu Jun 19 14:07:24 UTC 2014

Yes, dear Barry,

i totally agree with this part of your message:

 > I think sometimes we fuss too much about the past, about mostly
 > settled issues, and not enough about a vision for the future.
 >
 > Even some of these visions for the future are just reorganized visions
 > of the past.

But not with the rest. Of course, the content of "internet of things" is 
the same. The full connection of all hosts, if they want to do that.

If we don't have our vision, we lost our orientation. The visions are 
our destinations. The ways to go to this destinations can be different. 
If we have the same destination points, then we met us any time.

Following of the rule of massively decentralized, massively parallel and 
massively redundant, we create the material conditions of the full 
communications on our world.

The transport language is only the IP header information. Only that we 
need to understand. All others inside the data in the packet stay in the 
responsibility of the communication prtners. They can implement the 
"internet of things", the VGN (virtual geo network), VPN (virtual 
private network) with all different methods of encryptions and flow 
control. With or without TCP.

Michel, he wrote it clear. With the common roads the people was able to 
create his netowrks. And with the globally connections for our 
immaterial transport system we do the same.

Of course, the instrument to do that are materials. We have to develop, 
construct and build that. Its like our basic livelihoods. We can not 
live in a virtual environment. Our life rest on the reality.

many greetings, willi
Panama City

Am 06/17/2014 10:01 p.m., schrieb Barry Shein:
> All very interesting, yes I read every word.
>
> I think sometimes we fuss too much about the past, about mostly
> settled issues, and not enough about a vision for the future.
>
> Even some of these visions for the future are just reorganized visions
> of the past.
>
> The Internet of Things is a vision for the future, but I'm not sure
> it's all that interesting. Maybe it's X10 (the home network system)
> with superior firepower. It will happen, we will open web browsers on
> our air conditioners and door locks and garage openers. They probably
> don't really have a lot to say to us.
>
> This was also a vision for RFID in the late 1990s, no? What happened
> to unmanned shops where you picked up items you wanted and as you
> walked out the door your phone (or whatever) paid for them? Mostly
> Wal-Mart used them to try to reduce theft of razor blades (no joke,
> most stolen item particularly by employees in Wal-Marts, or so they
> said, they were a major investor in early RFID.)
>
> The problem is there is a tendency to return to old economic and
> business models and economic and business models tend to define what
> is possible.
>
> Perhaps in a world of abstract virtual currency new ways of creating
> wealth will be discovered and accepted. Models which are truly
> post-natural resource, post-rentier, post-manufacture and distribution
> of tangible goods.
>
> The financial sectors already do this, trillions are created and
> destroyed daily in completely abstract wealth which only exists,
> sometimes for nanoseconds, within bit streams. The near-instaneous
> arbitrage of risk, for example.
>
> This is where true revolutions come from, new methods of wealth
> creation and distribution, not fighting over old models. Leave that to
> the lawyers.
>
>