[discuss] Communication of the European Commisson: "Internet Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet Governance"

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Feb 13 15:25:51 UTC 2014

At 16:07 12/02/2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>I would like to let you know that today (12 February 2013) the 
>European Commission has adopted its formal policy position on 
>Internet governance, via a Communication to the European Parliament, 
>the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
>Committee of the Regions: "Internet Policy and Governance - Europe's 
>role in shaping the future of Internet governance" (COM(2014) 72/4).

Dear Andrea,

Unfortunately, the root of their thinking is outdated because the 
"internet" that they are discussing is still phase one of the ARPANET 
internetting proof of the catenet concept. We still have to develop 
and deploy phase two (multitechnology transparency and capacity, i.e. 
architectural neutrality and OSI layer six) before starting to deploy 
further hardened and safe relational solutions. We are in the middle 
of the road, but we have not considered building cars yet. We will 
really know what we have to govern only by then – and it will most 
definitely be quite different from what "they" wish to make us 
believe (if I only judge by the name space historic tale that they 
use to justify their technical and political claims).

More seriously, if I may say so, in the middle of a confidence 
crisis, the only solution proposed is to believe in pious vows 
without any practical capacity to enforce them. The mistrust is not 
of the USA but rather of the whole technology and its ad equation to 
humans. How was it so technically simple (1) for the NSA to collect 
all these data (2) for Edward to download 1.7 million confidential 
files and sneak them around the world?

My main worry is not being spied on, but that the data on me are so 
poorly protectable by the technology and protected by those who 
snooped them. The internet is a network of networks; Snowden is a 
spoof of spoofs. Now, what they have found that to patch the problem 
is to globally globalize globality. God bless us and ICANN.

There is no intrinsic difference between the road and the internet 
governances, and so the metaphor helps spotting the pretenses. The 
network architecture is the road works. The governance is the way to 
write highway codes and register plates. The DNS is the plate 
registration system. The highway codes are the technical (RFC) and 
behavioral (BCP) protocols. The technology is the way to build cars. 
The law...should stay the law, which goes the same for the HR.

I am sorry, but I am more interested in my car than in the car design 
in general, and certainly more in my safe transportation than in the 
color of my plates. All I know is that digital roads are not safe and 
that our priorities are to lock our doors, and fasten our belts due 
to the road bumps. Any governance system that does not start from a 
driver/user security/safety oriented reshaping of the road curves, in 
not considering road-type adherence, pavement refitting, 
signalization revamp, etc. is not in tune with the people and, 
therefore, will be circumvented by them. In addition, if one does it, 
it will only manage a transition.

As Brian would say: this is mathematical.

Therefore, the focus is not on the present governance ideal 
mechanisms but rather on the technology that will make them 
mandatory. On the internet, the only power is the power of reality, 
i.e. the power of the code. I am sorry, but I do not trust code that 
is influenced by an organization that does not think about protecting 
1.7 million confidential files from an external contractor who only 
signed a Standard Form 312.

The resulting reasonable "then attitude" is to stop considering 
something that does not exists, namely a so-called internet, and 
consider what does exist, i.e. the RFCs that establish how our 
computers can internet together. One may very well salt it with the 
way the people behind the computer behave with the computer, just as 
we consider the way people behave with their car. However, Internet 
Governance MUST include all the stakeholders' concerns, starting with 
the technical, industrial, and commercial concerns so that the entire 
world can judge and decide.

>At 23:13 12/02/2014, Mike Roberts wrote:
>It should be noted that Milton's option 3 (*) was ICANN's original 
>intent, prior to intervention by government lawyers at the end of 1998.
>(*) De-nationalization of the IANA function; i.e., removal of USG 
>control and delegation of it to ICANN. Note well: this does NOT 
>require the exclusion of governments from all involvement in ICANN.

This confirms that:

* ICANN cannot exist as a standalone multinational body, by lack of 
practical use, without USG backing and, therefore, it has to be 
brought back under FCC influence instead of military-industrial 
NSA/NTIA and a a world digisphere enhanced cooperation organization 
has to develop and be confirmed by multilateral treaty. ICANN should 
be one of its promoters through Sao Paulo and be a stakeholder there, 
as a stakeholder representative.

* as being co-networks' owners within the internet network of 
networks, informed/independent IUsers must organize themselves and 
their IUse (internet intelligent use) on an MS basis in a way that 
they can individually trust:

(1) their IANA files and functions
(2) their intertech multitechnology support (requiring network 
neutrality: the recent US Judge decision on the matter, actually 
creates two internets).
(3) their interuse extended functors (OSI presentation layer six and above).
(4) their IP usage until the operating system (posix) and networking 
protocols (RFCs) have converged into an open free (netix) standard 
continuity acknowledged by ISO.

As a consequence, the MS IG can only be organized, at this stage, 
in/by targeting an ultimate convergence of MS transitional efforts, 
most probably documented through the preparation of a multilateral MS 
based treaty on an international Internet use codes (people, 
institutions and commerce) and world digital organization.

In the meanwhile the common concern should be ethitechnical, i.e. how 
to review, correct and harden the technology for crime and snooping 
to be more costly than their rewards in the context of:

* the commonly accepted aesthetic, the WSIS unanymously defined as 
being a "people centered" information society.
* the technological emergence of intellition, as the relational 
intelligence between data that permits to infer non communicated 
information and obsoletes snooping,

There is a paradox at willing to change the nature of the IG and 
preserve the technological and and the political status-quos. This is 
why I plan to engage in the HomeRoot *experimentation* (along ICANN 
ICP-3 demands) because its very nature (Libre's continuation of the 
IETF architecture, without proprietary constraint of any kind) 
obliges the resulting Intertech/Interuse fringe to fringe strata to 
be technically, operationnally, and to some extent economically, 
governed on an MS basis.

The interest of an European experimentation is that in addition to be 
multistakeholder and multitechnology it will be multilinguistic, and 
therefore include IDNA from the very begining, an ISO layer 6 
presentation job.


>The press release of the adoption is available at 
>The text of the Communication is available at 
>The statement by Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European 
>Commission and Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, is available at 
>I hope you find this information useful and the content of the 
>Communication interesting.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140213/32da5699/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list