[discuss] we need to fix what may be broken
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 22.214.171.124.rev.sfr.net ([126.96.36.199]: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 188.8.131.52)
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 184.108.40.206 [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