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

Stephane Van Gelder Consulting svg at stephanevangelder.com
Fri Dec 27 01:09:22 UTC 2013


Shatan makes a very good point.

I would say that the MS model puts a lot of the power in the hands of the
many, whilst the ML model puts that power in the hands of the few.

So it's in the interest of the many to keep the MS model strong, and in the
interest of the few to weaken it.

Le jeudi 26 décembre 2013, Badru Ntege a écrit :

>  Greg
>
>  On 12/26/13 7:32 PM, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan at ReedSmith.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '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>
> *Cc*: discuss at 1net.org <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. 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, i
>
>

-- 
Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING

T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook:
www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131227/87ace6b9/attachment.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list