[discuss] So-called alternate roots

Mon Jan 6 02:01:22 UTC 2014

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear Michel,

many, if not most, of the participants here have been engaged in these
kinds of ongoing discussions for up to 10 years or even more. So,
there is a continuing conversation between many 1net subscribers.
Which means, just jumping into this list and drawing premature
conclusions simply based on observing what has been said here during
the past few months will not do the issues any justice. But I will try
to address your questions as much as I can. (see below)

On 05/01/2014 01:54, Michel Gauthier wrote:
> At 19:34 04/01/2014, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:
>> Michel, I don't think you are doing anyone a favor (including
>> yourself) by this gross oversimplification. If you need a few
>> snappy preliminary conclusions, I would rather offer something
>> along the lines outlined below.
> 
> Dear Peter,
> 
> I am only talking of my /1NET experience and evaluation. Pablo
> Hinojosa carried some stats on the written contributions, I am
> interested in evaluating the impact of /1NET and LOG and, further
> on, Sao Paulo on the Digisphere.
> 
> Your review is a serious one. You are an  European. I am really 
> interested. Let proceed.
> 
>> 1) 1net is a new venue to discuss complex Internet governance
>> issues between governments, business, civil society and the
>> technical experts that know how the Internet works.
> 
> I am sorry, but those who really know how the internet works are
> the lead users, then the industrial users and the end users..

Trust me, all of those kinds of users are represented here. Although I
am just one insignificant 1net participant, I combine many
experiences. For example, I have been an end user of the Internet for
over 23 years now. I have worked in various industries (electrical
engineering, industrial manufacturing, international finance, business
consulting, telecommunications) for over 25 years, of which over 22
years as an Internet user.

I have no idea what you mean by "lead users", but if you think those
are the ones who are early adopters and spearheads and multipliers,
then I am sure you have more than the average of those participating
on this list. In addition, you have many of the Internet's architects,
those who wrote the RFCs that describe how different aspects of the
Internet work or should work. And quite a few who are here who build
and maintain the basic infrastructure running the net. Plus those who
make the domain name industry their business. That's why I have
addressed the 1net participants as those who really *know* how the
Internet works. You got the experts and the users.

>> The goal is to come to a rough consensus amongst all
>> participants about the things that need to be tackled first in
>> order to assure a continued well-functioning Internet and to move
>> beyond discussions to recommendations and possibly actions.
> 
> By who?

By those participating here. Many of which are in a position to effect
or motivate change, either directly or as multipliers.

>> Insofar as 1net concentrates
> 
> Who is "1net"?  There are 600 people. So let say "the people who 
> consider that the 1net list may be an interesting forum, seem to 
> concentrate".

You may view it that way.

>> on actionable items within the powers of participants to change,
>> it promises to add to, rather than compete with, the Internet
>> Governance Forum, which is a non-binding, non-decision-making
>> forum established by the United Nations.
> 
> This would be something in total contradiction with MSism.

No. It would be an embodiment of multistakeholder participation
informing decision makers. I have no big regard for -isms, so I'll
leave that topic to academics who may analyze this with a historical
perspective.

> - MSism means an open documented IGF debate permitting each
> stakeholder to take the best decision for him/her in the commonly
> discussed context.

If that is how you define it, then this list would help to fulfill
that kind of promise.

> - the idea of actionable item and participant powers means at
> least coalesced initivatives.

I would not speak of coalescence in the strict sense, but if two or
more parties agree to do something differently based on a common
agreement following a discussion involving all stakeholder groups,
then I would see that as one of the expected outcomes.

> Is that the target of /1NET?

I do not speak for 1net, and I don't think the targets have yet been
defined. Nor even all of the problems that should be discussed.

> In which areas? We are within less than four months from Sao Paulo.
> Who will be there? What will be the agenda?

That, I think, will be decided by that group which will organize the
Sao Paolo meeting. As far as I know, the respective Steering Committee
has not yet been formed.

>> 2) The participation of all relevant stakeholders in a 
>> multi-stakeholder environment shall assure that all viewpoints
>> can be taken into consideration, including, inter alia,
>> consideration for sciences, reality, users, sovereign uses. On a
>> technical level, issues expected to be at center stage are e.g.
>> DNS, IPv6/IPv4, networking, to name just a few.
> 
> Relevant stakeholders are the members of the global markets who 
> economies is to guide and direct all this. These are industrial, 
> commercial, lead and end users. Where are they?

See above. Everyone is invited to the table, and there is not much
difficulty in participating, as most discussion currently takes place
online. Are you afraid those "industrial, commercial, lead and end
users" are being left out, just as Arthur Dent in the Hichhiker's
Guide to the Galaxy, who learned too late that his house was destined
for destruction, and that the plans had been lying in some obscure
office for two years for him to review? In that case, we should make
sure those users get to know about 1net.

> The DNS, IPadressing, networking areas I quoted are for the 
> I*specialists. the I*Users are interested in security, trust, 
> reliability, quality, neutrality, deployment, costs,
> infrastructure, protection, precaution, privacy,intimacy, national
> laws respect, police, cyberdefense, multilinguistics, cultures,
> innovation, simplicity of use, ubiquity, stability, services,
> services, and services ...

Yep. Good topics. Many of which, I am sure, will be playing a part here.

>> 3) Because many of the issues are not one-dimensional, but have 
>> technical, business, policy and societal impacts, there is no
>> simple or clear cut answer to many questions, as both the goals
>> of participants as well as their explicit or implicit value
>> judgements around security, privacy, freedom, respect, trust,
>> etc. play a part.
> 
> Yes. There is only one solution to this that has been proposed so
> far and unanimously adopted by the nations at the WSIS and by the
> world for two centuries, this is the respect, protection, and
> service of the person centricity. Everything can and is to focus on
> this centricity.

Hmmm... two centuries? We only had roughly 65 years of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and only 10 years since WSIS I, 8 years
since WSIS II. I participated in both WSIS I+II, and I read all the
documents, but the term "person centricity" does not show up. Neither
in the Geneva Declaration of Principles
(http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html) nor in the
Geneva Plan of Action
(http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html) nor in the
Tunis Commitment (http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/7.html) and
finally not in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society
(http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html).

> This is on what I am interested to report: how the TIC will help 
> developping the 2014 society in that area along the millenium 
> objectives? Demanding which innovation, political, technical, 
> organizational, architectural, financial, and scientific
> contribution?

I think this may be too broad an aspiration for 1net, although maybe
some of the issues discussed may impact on all those areas. But
essentially, it is up to society to decide upon those areas.

>> 4) Most participants are however agreeing that the Internet as a 
>> network of networks that allows everyone on Earth to connect to
>> anyone else should be preserved, that the end-to-end principle,
>> innovation at the edges, experimentation without doing harm
>> should continue to be encouraged.
> 
> That people agree does not make it happen. Pragmatic and pratical
> work is to be carried. I am here to learn and report how this /1net
> debate together with the LOG, in the perspective of Sao Paulo, is
> to make this work advanced or delayed, how and why.
> 
> So far, I explained that my analysis is inconclusive.

Right. It's too early to draw conclusions.

>> These lines may not be as newsworthy as a catchy polarization,
>> but your readership would eventually get a better picture of
>> what's going on.
> 
> My readership perfectly knows the framework you quote. What they
> want to know is which decision they can take in order to take
> advantage of (or have to take to protect their projects/investments
> from) the results of this endeavor.

Would you kindly explain to me for what publication you are writing?
Or are you simply gathering "intelligence" for the "closed group of
coopted managers, searchers, and journalists that practise mutual
information and documentation sharing on business, technical R&D,
political life and digital governance, arts, and cultures", as
described on your Website at http://www.telepresse.com ?

>> While many participants seem to fight with others on various
>> issues, all are united in their desire to make the Internet
>> better, more robust, safe and stable for everyone.
> 
> As everywhere when things are claimed to be on an equal footing,
> some are more equal than others. What I try to understand is who
> is/ill be more equal than others in Sao Paulo, why, who can take
> advantage from it, and how. Hence, what are the strategic
> priorities that will/should be engaged.

Good luck.

(rest of the message history snipped for brevity)

Best regards
Peter

- -- 
Peter H. Hellmonds
<peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu>
OpenPGP public key: http://blog.hellmonds.net/contact/openpgp/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSyg5wAAoJEDX9wNXPHc4PEY0H/3Qfq7VQ56fMgZRDq1J8g60C
HYH4PCsuWg/mer4KrGnfVqZHuJKQkF7chnMaEk/3A+nEvlpc6B5VsvhNq1ee/vsC
qG+LKz6yvZRBZ1iJ3Snif/QEAxPiU/5jfqG9WmNBuKbDFA3FQczy87uSaT+ujTOO
cYRv75lNp0hBc8IKp+wwO/sBRM+tbHAq37nexiWeUtCD609nCCJ4xHUcIaT7FJqE
7q42H345OW4R4/rHHKL3oS0q2QU7Vor42HJ+Go0vU35gEIrYvZkTOYB+K3Ngt0fK
YktaGVy/QdqEI7sltRa2xlOK0IVvw1lF6oyg50G8H7z+q5OtxPHIJlFCWrS4ybs=
=pTQC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0xCF1DCE0F.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 2741 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140106/b249a199/0xCF1DCE0F.asc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0xCF1DCE0F.asc.sig
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 287 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140106/b249a199/0xCF1DCE0F.asc.sig>