[discuss] Communication of the European Commisson: "Internet Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet Governance"
andrea at digitalpolicy.it
Fri Feb 28 09:58:01 UTC 2014
my apologies for reacting so late to your email. Not only I have been
busier than usual at work and with some annoying health issues in the
family (people with kids will understand...) but the Communication on
Internet Policy and Governance has generated quite some interest and I am
trying to participate in discussions across different lists / communities.
Before I go on, let me say that (without any intent to be or sound
offensive) I find it difficult to understand your writing. I have the
distinct impression that there is quite some "background systemic thinking"
behind your positions, but I'm always unsure whether I interpret the terms
you use in the way you intend them to be interpreted.
So, generally speaking, it would be very useful if you could point me at
some sort of "glossary" to make sure I do not inadvertently misinterpret
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:25 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> 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,
[SNIPPING A LOT]
I do not understand whether you agree with the objectives the European
Commission put forth in the Communication on Internet Policy and
Governance. In any case, if I understand correctly, your suggestion would
- focus not on the "present governance ideal mechanisms" but rather on the
technology that will make them mandatory;
- include all the stakeholders' concerns, starting with the technical,
industrial, and commercial concerns;
- review, correct and harden the technology for crime and snooping to be
more costly than their rewards;
- bring back ICANN under FCC influence instead of "military-industrial
- develop a "world digisphere enhanced cooperation organization";
- "confirm" the above-mentioned organisation via a multilateral treaty.
Do I understand correctly your proposals?
P.S.: since my reply is coming quite late, I'm leaving JFC's original
message below for reference, apologising for the extra bytes of traffic.
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
> * 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
> (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
> The press release of the adoption is available at
> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm .
> 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
> http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I086325 .
> I hope you find this information useful and the content of the
> Communication interesting.
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss