[discuss] Time to be more precise about Internet Governance

Mon Dec 30 17:18:27 UTC 2013

On 16:49 30/12/2013, Jorge Amodio said:
>It is becoming almost ridiculously funny to keep seen references to 
>IEN 48 from somebody that has been trolling many email lists for 
>many years and that never before mentioned IEN-48 until Vint 
>recently sent a message to an email list where we talk about 
>Internet history asking for a version of IEN-48 that had the figures attached.
>
>Perhaps it is time for a speed upgrade at Tymnet ...

One should not feed the trolls.

But Jorge's trolling is too fun.
A very quick search on Google for "IEN 48 Jefsey" would have shown him:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/architecture-discuss/current/msg00346.html 

The interest of this 2006 mail is that I happen to quote IEN-48 in a 
long comment of reference of Brian Carpenter. This only shows that 
the problem this "1NET" mailing list discusses is around for many 
years (actually since Vint Cerf"s definition of a "subnet" for HOSTS) 
and that we have reached the point it does not scale anymore in the 
users' opinion.

The only result of that troll of yours is to show how reliable are 
your technical inputs.
Best, Jorge!
jfc

NB. Calling someone a "troll" is the usual ultimate ad-personam (not 
to be cnonfused with ad-hominem) response of a techie having no 
technical response. This is well documented by Schopenhauer.

It was extensively used against me by "US globalists" at the IETF 
trying to impeach me, and other non-English natives, to obtain a 
consensus toward the RFCs defining the multilinguistic support of the 
Internet (RFCs on lang-tags and IDNA). Some US conservative activists 
keep being opposed to my open multilinguistic/multicultural internet 
positions and whish to favor an American language positive 
discrimination (as in RFC 3935) " because of its utility for working 
in a global context".

This is an outdated dispute over OSI presentation Internet missing 
layer six, which is the layer to address security, languages, active 
content, etc.

There still are people who believe that simplfying NSAs' task is 
making the internet work better and better protect citizens. The 
architectural solution I am advocating is to extend firewalls, 
browsers, anti-viruses,etc. to a robust and consolidated full fledge 
layer six architecture smart gateway, supporting some kind of 
enhanced and intelligent P2P approach. I fully understand that 
Patriot Act voters may oppose: my objection to them, however, is that 
NSAs level of surveillance (anti-terrorsim/cybewarfare) is now more 
sophisticated (big data oriented) and that national citizens 
protection participates to the general national defense. A position 
shared by most experts.

As a general matter, experience has shown the Internet architecture 
to be much more robust and open than permitted by its current 
technical monopolistic governance. This is why what is discussed 
about "technical IG" is often a defense of cast (not in the case of 
Brian Carpenter who has clearly documented different reasons, I partly share).