[discuss] Internet Governance PDPs and Audits

Jefsey jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Feb 20 12:32:11 UTC 2014

W3C is a member of OpenStand. ICANN joined in Montevideo where IEEE 
was not present. This created an unballance:

- everyone but ICANN agreed upon an economic vision of IG in order to 
define technology development paradigm. However, it did not defined 
who will be the ultimate decision taker for OpenStand (i.e. the whole 
digital technology), what IAB/ISOC is for the network part of that 
technology. This is the reason of my appeal as users and Govs cannot 
be bound by merchants' decisions.

- everyone but IEEE agreed upon a political approach of an IG revamp. 
However, this attempt is not based upon a serious technical 
consideration of the technological convergence needed to reduce the 
UNIX "superuser" dogma (i.e. the IEEE machine "root" and the ICANN 
network "root").

The difficulty was to make their concerns converge (trough a kind of 
multiple regression), and see if we could insert our IUser/CS 
concerns also converge, so a "root" cause analysis 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_cause_analysis) they could 
understand could be attempted (cf. 8D 

1. on the IEEE concerns side:

My analysis is that the digital thinking regression consists in 
puting IEEE and IETF concerns in continuity (W3C is some kind of an 
example). The architectural place for computers and networks to be in 
continuity is the internet technology missing layer six. The easiest 
way of achieving is in conceptually extending posix to netix, i.e. a 
single command set for everything as demanded by a global distributed 

2. on the ICANN concerns side:

The problem of ICANN is that they result from an single governement 
contract while they want to be global. This means a global extension 
of national sovereignty. This was a good for all as long as that Gov 
could be more or less neutral, its influence protecting us against 
crime. This is no more possible because the posix technology is not 
snoop proof, its vulnerability is at the network/posix dicontinuity. 
This increases the risks of cyberwar and the surveillance capacities. 
The USG has chosen to use this in orer to protect its citizens rather 
than the everyone.

This is its job, but it means the end of the e-sovereignty limbo. 
E-sovereignty cannot be limited to the physical boundaries of 
Westphalian Nation-States. This means that the other States national 
soverignty has also to become global. This was the essence of my 
initial ISO 3166 based reporting on the namespace unique single 
reality (1978/86) This is expressed through VGNs (Virtual Global 
Networks). I held the concept for years because the world was not 
prepared to 192 ICANNs by 192 Govs: crime would have been the first 
to take advantage from it. Now, after Snowden, the degree of 
political digital awareness has reached a sufficient level to insure 
us an ambiant protection from criminal creeps.

Now, once we have VGNs and presentation Layer six netix continuity at 
least conceptually with us, we can use MS enhanced cooperation 
organizations in order to organize the whole digisphere ecosystem, 
probably as a World Digisphere Organization where we will have to 
normatively accomodate multilaterality and MSism among Govs, 
Business, and informed users, each of them having its own political, 
technical, cultural, legal contributors.


At 20:51 19/02/2014, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>Over the past couple of months, I have watched how alot of the 
>comments are ICANN related. I feel that for the most part ICANN is a 
>continuously morphing entity that is seriously committed to 
>inclusion, participation from diverse stakeholders and whose Policy 
>Development Processes are open to comment, replies etc.
>There are some other organisations such as W3C who have working 
>groups that are known to have only  6 days comment period etc.
>Whilst organisations differ in how they organise themselves, there 
>are aspects of what they do that require minumum threshholds of 
>accountability and best practice.
>It might be useful to determine a benchmark via ratings.These 
>ratings could be carried out independently.
>Regardless of the institution, something worthwhile looking at are 
>some sort of high level principles that can be used to audit or to 
>be considered best practice for organisations so they can be rated.
>I would be interested to see studies commissioned in this area 
>pertaining to issues of accessibility as it relates to meaningful 
>Kind Regards,
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org

More information about the discuss mailing list