[discuss] Boundaries and sovereignty
jefsey at jefsey.com
Sat Feb 1 18:47:18 UTC 2014
At 11:18 01/02/2014, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>Imagine countries and territories fighting for over Country Code top
>level domains. Imagine for a moment, if Brazil and Brunei were to
>fight over something like .br .This is merely a hypothetical
>situation as we know Brazil is assigned .br
This is the ICANN created case between Bulgaria and Brazil:
>This adds a level of politicization if countries and territories
>would start fighting over names placing the burden of assignment an
>administrative nightmare. To prioritize a country over another
>becomes political. It is complex because countries and territories
>go through self determination, annexes which result in names
>constantly in flux. New countries are borne, such as South Sudan or
>former colonies become countries such as New Hebrides (former
>condominium) to Vanuatu. You can see the change history here:
>The ISO 3166 takes away that layer of politicization from IANA. As
>the burden to select which country gets which country code is
>determined by the ISO, see: http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes
>Whilst there will always be conflicts over country codes, the
>political risk is mitigated and minimised.
This decision occurred in 1978 and it was for this very reason that
there is ".uk" and not ".gb" as per ISO 3166. The idea was that each
technology vendor could introduce its own naming plan (i.e. TLD set)
with a resulting cacophony for the users.
This idea also prevailed in the addressing plan. This was X.121 and
by end of 1985 the entire world was mapped with a consistent name and
number system, except the internet (which was the sole State owned
connected private net) where conversion between names and numbers was
at the gateway: this conversion was symbolized by the "dot" at the
end of the names. (*)
This also introduced the problem that we face: both sides understood
their face of the "." quite differently.
- on the International/global side, it symbolized one of the
equal-footed gateways to one of the many national and corporate
the world's global system.
- on the Internet it was the symbol of their global namespace that
their technology was first intended to support (IEN 48).
This introduced a political split between two different logics, and
not the technical union of two different naming and numbering
syntaxes as was intended. This is because Tymnet was then acting as
the MS international registry:
- on behalf of the FCC for all the US operators for the naming and as
per OSI global standards for the addressing.
- and tacitly for the rest of the world as having provided the
technology of 100% of the initial international liaisons.
At that time, the US was very active at the CCITT (ANSI, BBN) pushing
for the CCITT (ITU) OSI model in order to stabilize an equal-footed
MS approach among communications leaders (States, Manufacturers,
TransNational Corporations). Users were represented by the fact that
Tymnet was a user support oriented company and that the actual
registry was maintained by the Intlnet non-profit. This was roughly
the situation that the I*coalition is trying to restore.
The technical analysis of what spoiled it for merchant/political
motives (**) and why political moves where influential (***) tells us
what we have to do.
Basically, I see two key lessons there for us:
1. we did not go deep enough in the e-empowerment anchoring. France,
which was the logical leader, went deep enough with the Telematics,
but the Minitel was a terminal, not a client and certainly not a
peer. WSIS gave us the clue: the information society MUST be people
centered IF it was going to work.
2. cyclades and internet were architectural proofs of Pouzin's
catenet concepts. This concept was (as IEN 48 shows it) twofold:
global internetting and multitechnology oriented. Cyclades was closed
in 1978 when Tymnet started deploying the multitechnology support on
a global basis. The former Cyclades team pursued its BBN/Telenet
alliance in order to finalize the catenet architecture as a mature
networking standard that eventually failed because it was overly
telecommunication oriented, but that Tymnet also deployed on a
worldwide basis. This gives us the second clue: multi-interuse
support is required. The network proposition MUST be trade/end-user oriented.
OpenStand (****) has ended the internet global phase of the proof of
concept in acknowledging "the economics of global markets, fueled by
technological advancements" and not the sole IAB vision, "drive
global deployment of standards regardless of their formal status".
Snowden has enforced the idea by ending the trust people had in the
idea that the current internet system is not broken. The current
internet is not broken, it is uncompleted. We entered in the second
phase of the Internetting project, the phase of its second motivation
which is to internetwork technologies, trades, services, and people.
The focus is no longer on the hosts and ends because this part works
and works well enough. A good example of this transition towards an
"intertech" and then a subsequent "interuse" strata is the support of
the internationalized domain names. We are back to the need of a
network ecosystem that is equal footed on an MSism basis.
This is why the solution to our debate is outside of it, but
enlightened by it. It consists in providing each person and
utilization a full command on their relational behavior in continuity
with their command of their decision process through their operating
system, applications, and databases. This means, atop of the OSI
pile, a network oriented OS continuation of Posix. For years,
considering a Netix Posix continuation could have been at odds with
the network stability. For many reasons, including the awareness
embodied in this list, that is no longer the case. This is why I will
call for a NetixBarCamp this July at the RMLL
consider the status of the art and a roadmap and the HomeRoot project
example ("give back everyone their root's data").
NB. An example: several countries (including most US States) have
dropped the handwriting priority at school in favor of keyboards.
This means that the practical scripting and orthotypography will be
decided by the most character encompassing mecalanguages. This means
most probably the IDNA Table will become the writing table of
reference that everyone will locally need for many purposes
(*) I found some mails that were exchanged during the organization of
I would be very interested in finding more, as most of our issues
today root there.
(**) Tymnet was acquired by McDonnell Douglas which (1) did not
understand the potential of cyberspace and (2) favored the
Unix/Internet US military-industrial complex technology and a network
centered vision instead of an equal footed MS one.
(***) IMHO, these political motives explain much of our political
debate, which will lead to nowhere if we make it a priority. What we
want is the technical stability in a non-conflicting political
context. The technical aspects being the longer term one, as it is
better to give them the primary feasibility attention, to check their
societal acceptability, and then to consider their long-term
(****) "In this [modern] paradigm standards support interoperability,
foster global competition, are developed through an open
participatory process, and are voluntarily adopted globally. These
voluntary standards serve as building blocks for products and
services targeted at meeting the needs of the market and consumer,
thereby driving innovation. Innovation in turn contributes to the
creation of new markets and the growth and expansion of existing
markets." I could endorse that if every relational space was
considered without having to be a global market, and if an ethical
appeal process was included in order to avoid self-ordering
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss