[discuss] we need to fix what may be broken

Jefsey jefsey at jefsey.com
Sat Apr 19 07:49:56 UTC 2014

At 01:26 19/04/2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>On 19/04/2014 10:05, Michel Gauthier wrote:
>(via JFC's server:
>Received: from ([]:49879
>         helo=GHM-SAM.dot.dj) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82)
>         (envelope-from <mg at telepresse.com>)
>         id 1WbHOq-0006xp-ML; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:36:49 -0700
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version

Hello, Brian,

I think you should learn a few bits about VGNs!
On another hand it shows that even expert people expertly discussing 
the "Internet Governance" are singularly out of phase with reality.

Probably my fault.

I thought that it was really possible to amalgamate the two EIN 48 
motivations, finalize RFC 6852 to attein a common modus vivendi, and 
that intelligent people's "potentia" could help the responsible 
people's "potestas", through extensions work at the fringe and viral 
voluntary dissemination. This has limited the work to the simple 
robust choices of a few individuals with heavy agenda (for example 
Eudora [their last stable copy]  is used for years for 
several unique features that are embeded in our old "test and working 
architecture" - we do not even have university scarce funding ...).

I see I was wrong: only a few persons are intelligent enough in here 
to understand the need for an architectonic debate as the NTIA 
distanciation shows it. I thought you were one of them as RFC 1958 is 
certainly the key reference for me, as I told you in a congratulation 
mail a long ago. My concern is that I do not know if I am wrong due 
to the over-influence of the ICANN Cartel's structural BUG (wanting 
to Be Unilaterally Global) of if there is a true necessity for an 
end/fringe discountinuity similar to bandwidth/internet one like 
between the ITU and IETF. Our parallel discussions with Houlin Zao, 
seem to show that Louis Pouzin is right, something entirely new is to 
be rebuilt at the internet strata in order to accomodate a regular, 
peaceful and efficient stand alone use and its VGNs based upon a 
neutral protocol system (i.e. able to protect persons from the US 
fringe providers). Up to know, I though the split was only between 
the US 1996 Telecommunications Act and the rest of the world's legislations.

Jay's clumsy NSA proceedings shown me that I was wrong. We cannot 
expect an enhanced cooperation with people who are entrenched in 
their single end to end purely communication oriented vision and 
stabilized prototype technology. We try to (also clumsily) make it 
work, he is not interested to understand what we do. There is no 
offence given, no offence taken: RFC 5895's "unusual" word is the border line.

After all, I might be glad the IUCG was hacked after I publicized the 
very old VGN concept (what I sold in the early 80s) and we have to 
rebuild the site: we will probably do it in a slightly different perspective.

We will probably announce today or tomorrow, a first step for us to 
free ourselves from a unique server and the scarce ressources of a 
single VGN, and duplicate open-code R&D (but we are only informed 
users, not academics nor paid engineers).


More information about the discuss mailing list