[discuss] Internet Governance PDPs and Audits

Fri Feb 21 13:45:21 UTC 2014

Salanieta,
Sorry, this mail was sent unfinished and unreviewed by mistake.

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

- everyone but ICANN agreed upon an economic vision of IG in order to 
define the technology development paradigm. However, it did not 
define as to 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 for my appeal, as users 
and Govs cannot be bound by merchants' decisions.

- everyone but the IEEE agreed upon a political approach to 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 (through a kind of 
multiple regression), and see if we could insert our IUser/CS 
concerns to also converge, so as a "root" cause analysis 
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_cause_analysis>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_cause_analysis) 
they could understand and it could be attempted (cf. 8D 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Disciplines_Problem_Solving>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Disciplines_Problem_Solving). 

1. on the IEEE concerns side:

My analysis is that the digital thinking regression consists in 
putting 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 it is in conceptually extending posix to netix, i.e. 
a single command set for everything as demanded by global distributed 
processing.

2. on the ICANN concerns side:

The problem of ICANN is that they are the result of a single 
government contract but they want to be global. This means a global 
extension of national sovereignty. This was good for all as long as 
that Gov could be more or less neutral, its influence protecting us 
against crime. This is no longer possible because the posix 
technology is not snoop proof, and its vulnerability is at the 
network/posix discontinuity. This increases the risks of cyberwar and 
surveillance capacities. The USG has chosen to use this in order to 
only protect its citizens rather than 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 
sovereignty also has 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 ensure 
ambient 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 accommodate multilaterality and MSism among Govs, 
Business, and informed users, each of them having its own political, 
technical, cultural, and legal contributors.

However, we now have to be careful at staying balanced. 
Merkel/Hollande positions would fragment the internet to the 
detriment of the French and German users and industries. This is due 
to the common technical and political BUG (of being unilaterally 
global). This is the ICANN bug; it should not extend to Europe and 
then Russia, China, Brazil, etc.

3. The BUG.

The BUG is documented in an ICANN ICP-3 document when it states:

"The Internet's proper operation requires *assignment* of unique 
values to various identifiers for different computers or services on 
the Internet. To be effective, these assigned values must be made 
broadly available and their significance must be respected by the 
many people responsible for the Internet's operation. For example, 
every computer on the public Internet is *assigned a unique IP 
address*; this address is made known to routers throughout the 
Internet to cause TCP/IP packets with that destination address to be 
routed to the intended computer. Without common agreement to respect 
the assignment, the Internet would not reliably route communications 
to their intended destinations."

ICANN confuses its assignment technology, policy, and broadcasting 
(in the UNIX "superuser" former heliocentric paradigm) with an 
impossible Sun King political control on the internet. There is a 
pollution effect, as we see in the Merkel/Hollande position where 
they want to secede from 
 their own global shared territory.

"A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they 
alone, share" (The Essential Tension, 1977) says Khun. We are 
confronted here with an architectonic political paradigm shift where 
a political paradigm is what members of the political community, and 
they alone, share. The confusion they currently share is not a 
paradigm. Sao Paulo must be for them a way to start clarifying this confusion.

Their confusion comes from the common shift to the cosmology 
principle: on the internet, like everywhere, distribution is 
homogeneous and isotropic, and so names and numbers are only 
conventions and not nobilities. The map is not the territory. The 
same territory can have many maps.

It is only more convenient if most of the maps of the same territory 
use the same coordinates and the toponymy, and because of that get 
organized together.

Now the network fragmentation as advocated by Germany is like closing 
the roads rather than closing the doors. Closing the doors is safer, 
cheaper, and faster. On the internet, closing the door is studying, 
developing, validating, and using the missing security layer, 
Presentation Layer Six and possibly capabilities. The simplest is to 
include them in the VGN list of netix requirements.

Everyone is welcome to come to Montpellier, from 5-11 July, to 
discuss it at the IUCG Netix/VGN BarCamp.

4. The ICANN attitude.

How could you want us all on this list to trust ICANN after so many 
lies about what we have known all along the way at the Montevideo 
meeting, the unplanned Sao Paulo meeting, and grassroots origin of 
the /1NET list. Now, we will be challenged to demonstrate that there 
are links with the NTIA, GS1, etc.

All this is absolutely normal. The only thing that is abnormal is 
that people who can be so easily abused are in a position of 
influence. To the point that one can say with Avri that one is just 
using "a cynically opportunistic method of trying to achieve 
political critical Internet resource goals that have nothing to do 
with the serious problem of state surveillance on the world's people."

Who can be so professional about that? Reporting to who? The guess of 
most is NSC. I suppose that AVRI distrusts them: the world consider 
them seriously.

This is why I prefer to go by the law of the source code, documented 
by 7,500+ RFCs, and applied by billions of processors.

jfc

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 
>participation.
>
>Kind Regards,
>Sala
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140221/2fced87a/attachment.html>