[discuss] Criteria for Internet Governance (was) Re: List announcement "robust governance in the digital age"
jefsey at jefsey.com
Wed Feb 12 17:11:06 UTC 2014
I love this political-mathematical "single unitary root" incantative
mantra of networkers who confuse a network and a network unit.
A root is a root, is not a forest. The Internet is a global catenet,
i.e. (cf. Louis, Vint, and DARPA) a "collection of packet networks
which are connected together".
ICANN manages the ARPANET root. Period. And I do not give a damn
about its everything but MSist approaches. I do not feel concerned.
My machine has a root and is the root of my network. I manage my
root, the root file of my network, my HomeRoot, and my network the
way I want. Period.
My network is internetworked with the ARPANET network and many
others. MSism is for billions of people, including ICANN, to make
sure that our roots files are consistent.
Globalization in (Unicode originated) technical terminology means:
- internationalization of the protocols and addresses (that all of
our systems can talk together, worldwide).
- localization of our machines (that they can relate with each of us,
in the way we understand them)
- a common categorization. In languages, categorization is by
languages, scripts, and country, and in digital names it is by TLD and classes.
Everything else is B.S.
History suggests that in the absence of the counter-strategic
purchase of Tymnet by McDonnell Douglas in 1983, the FCC would not
have been superseded by Eisenhower's (*) military-industrial complex
in the digisphere networking leadership. ICANN would be one of the
stakeholders in the World Digisphere Organization that we need.
(*) In 1961, he "tried to make Americans more mistrustful of the
encroachments of a national-security state" (O. Knox). In 2014, Obama
says: "This is only going to work if the American people have
confidence and trust". They do what they want: I prefer to check,
review, and enhance, on my own and with my fellow users, everything
from the digital ground zero in terms of NSA proof network
effilience. You can understand once bitten, twice suspicious.
At 06:04 12/02/2014, David Cake wrote:
>Yes, as someone who spends quite a bit of time and effort involved
>in ICANN bottom up policy development processes, I find its blithe
>characterisation as a 'top-down' process rather confusing and a
>little insultingly dismissive of our efforts.
>It should also be noted that the NTIA contract is only one of ICANNs
>claims to legitimacy, and the history suggests that in the absence
>of that contract, an iAB endorsed organisation with some
>similarities to ICANN would still have been in charge of a single
>On 12 Feb 2014, at 3:31 am, Brian E Carpenter
><brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/02/2014 23:47, Michel Gauthier wrote:
> > ...
> >> Top-down is the ICANN, /1net approach: you cannot question the decrees
> >> of the root.
> > This is mixing up the technical meaning of top-down with the
> > organisational meaning.
> > Technically we must have a unique root to ensure that the Internet
> > does not contain ambiguous names. That is mathematically and
> > logically the same thing as a top-down mechanism. Like all
> > the "roots" in computer science, we draw it at the top of the
> > paper. If you draw it upside down, it's the same thing.
> > Organisationally we currently have a single organisation, managed
> > by the multi-stakeholder approach, to administer the unique root.
> > That's a human choice, not imposed by mathematics. But the
> > multi-stakeholder approach seems pretty bottom-up to me. The
> > only blot is the pointless NTIA contract.
> > Brian
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss