[discuss] Communication of the European Commisson: "Internet Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet Governance"
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).
Unfortunately, the root of their thinking is outdated because the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
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss