[discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013

[Badru Ntege]

Greg

On 12/26/13 7:32 PM, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan at ReedSmith.com<mailto:GShatan at ReedSmith.com>> wrote:


I would say that non-US govts (and Brazil is a prime example) are using Snowden to shift power to non-US govts and multilateral (i.e., govt-led) IG orgs and away from multistakeholder-based IG groups. In part, this is being done by making more out of ICANN's contacts and contracts with the US, so that some of the stink of Snowden is transmitted to ICANN and even onto the concept of stakeholder-defined MS-ism (as opposed to the government-defined "MS-ism" of Tunis/Geneva).

More bluntly, it looks like a power grab.

Interesting observation.  Fact is after all the good and bad are debated it always boils down to power.  And the question then becomes who do you trust with all the power and will they use it responsibly.   I think we need to get down to the barebones.  Its all about TRUST.  The challenge is that we do not all have a shared interest as I read the emails on the list our biggest challenge is getting to a unified position on what is expected.

Yes the snowdon issue just created an opportunity to open the debate since it weakened the previous perceived power base  and by the active and passionate discussion there were some pent up issues however I'm failing to see the real end in mind.

I remain an optimist




Greg Shatan
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device



From: JFC Morfin [mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 06:58 AM
To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
Cc: discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org> <discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>>
Subject: Re: [discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013

At 19:45 25/12/2013, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
we should however strive to achieve as much privacy as possible through participating in various discussion to ensure that our current privacy is not further infringed upon (in the name of security).

Seun,
with who do you want to efficiently discuss bit's behavior?

There is nothing to discuss. There is a technical job to complete: i.e. the catenet architecture of which the internet was the limited test (IEN 48 : "to define the objectives and limitations of the ARPA-internetworking project and to make explicit the catenet model on which the internetworking strategy is based.").

In networks architecture privacy, security, languages, trade, trade interapplication, etc. belong or root in presentation layer six (OSI model).

(1) the main Vint Cerf's IEN 48 limitation is to not implement layer six in the Internet architecture.
(2) over the years we have learned a lot about what is above the OSI model.
(3) because networking cannot function without layer six and what roots in it this has been disparately been implemented (ASCII, Unicode, MIME, Web, etc.) without security consistency and a very particular attention to privacy, since the whole economical model of te internet is actually to steal and sell privacy.

To identify this and proceed accordingly is a space/time related decision of stewardship (vicariance in French). Will it be through local, national, regional, global, virtual networks on a short/mid/long term basis? Who is to document the resulting fringe to fringe ASAP protocols (applications as a protocol)? This is what has actually underlaid the whole WCIT Part I debate. At the time it was not formulated: now we can speak-up, the "technically correct" has been shown its security lacks.

This is also something that conditions our GS1NET (*) RFID oriented debate, as Michael Gauthier reminded us. (NB. This is the old Silk Road debate: is the Road for commerce or for Govs and people. History retained the business name and that generals digged and maintained the wells).

There are those interested in order (Govs), money (business) and life (people). Currently, it seems that business is using Snowden to take the lead on Govs. Unless Govs have intelligently used Snowden to use business big data. Who knows? I am keep being mainly interested in people and in a ballanced relation with Govs and Business. Moreover than data networks permited to redevelop and progressively permit to meter a new substantial portion of the human economy which is made of non monetary common interest contributions (cic), i.e. a modern form of bottom-up corvée.

jfc

http://gs1.org<http://gs1.org/>. Fadi's RossetaNet effort and business is now directly under GS1 (i.e. the bar code organization). The target for GS1 (and bar code reader/service industry) to melt with DNs and control the internet of things (i.e. another layer six presentation issue ...)  Govs are certainly interested in a good coordination (and this way, regulation) of e-commerce. Everyone is, if the network is neutral and does not technically favor an industry, a country, an economy and does not oppose or compromise the internet of thoughts. Things are technically heaviliy involved, but NOT in end to end areas covered by the IETF and current academic people. One may understand why they are disturb.





* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.

* * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.

Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131226/a2c29970/attachment.html>