[discuss] So-called alternate roots

Michel Gauthier mg at telepresse.com
Mon Jan 6 11:20:04 UTC 2014

Dear Peter,
I quickly interspread some responses to your (direct or implied) questions.

At 03:01 06/01/2014, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:
>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 I am. Even more ... (see at the end)

> > the lead users, then the industrial users and the end users..
>Trust me, all of those kinds of users are represented here.

Sorry, "trust time" is over. Please tell me who is the User Rep  in 
the steering committee. Who are the members of the Usership Committee.

>I have no idea what you mean by "lead users",

This documents that you cannot claim you represent them.

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_user
IUCG at IETF. http://iucg.org/wiki

>You got the experts and the users.

I got some experts of the ARPA internetting politechnically correct. 
None of the leaders  is active. Steve Crocker,  Carlos Alonso never 
responded my questions. I enjoy the Michael Milton academic tussle. 
But this is hardly a strategic input.

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

This means leadership, not concerted multistakeholdership. Fadi 
Chehade, Kathy Brown, Keith Alexander, Vint Cerf, Bob Kahn, Russ 
Housley, Jari Arkko, Neelie Kroes, etc. are not here.

>No. It would be an embodiment of multistakeholder participation
>informing decision makers.

in a multistakeholder approach, by definition decisions are taken by 
holders concerning what they have at stake. There is no "embodiment".

>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.

The WSIS MS definition is based upon dynamic coalitions of 
stakeholders toward enhanced cooperations.
My constituants adhere to that vision, my job is to analyze/report 
its support/situation IRT to its various contexts.

>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.

They have only three months left.

>That, I think, will be decided by that group which will organize the
>Sao Paolo meeting.

Who is it?
ISOC, GS1, NSA, NTIA, LOG, GAC, the Syracuse University, OECD, Putin, 
Dilma Rousseff, the Anonymous, etc. ?

>As far as I know, the respective Steering Committee
>has not yet been formed.

I can only be surprised by such an amateurish calendar.
And therefore to reasonably ask myself is this is not a part of an 
astroturf bluff?

>See above. Everyone is invited to the table, and there is not much
>difficulty in participating, as most discussion currently takes place

Stakeholders are not interested in discussion, but in facts and acts. 
Who wants to decide what.

>Are you afraid those "industrial, commercial, lead and end
>users" are being left out? In that case, we should make
>sure those users get to know about 1net.

Some know.
This is why they want to really know.

In order to decide by their own, for their own.

> > 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.

If I can only report that "you are sure they will be playing a part", 
you may also be sure that a competitive technology split between 
specialists and pros will occur sou enough.

The real question is who will most take advantage from the fork?

> > 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.

Nosotros, los representantes de los pueblos del mundo, reunidos en 
Ginebra del 10 al 12 de diciembre de 2003 con motivo de la primera 
fase de la Cumbre Mundial sobre la Sociedad de la Información, 
declaramos nuestro deseo y compromiso comunes de construir una 
Sociedad de la Información

centrada en la persona,

integradora y orientada al desarrollo, en que todos puedan crear, 
consultar, utilizar y compartir la información y el conocimiento, 
para que las personas, las comunidades y los pueblos puedan emplear 
plenamente sus posibilidades en la promoción de su desarrollo 
sostenible y en la mejora de su calidad de vida, sobre la base de los 
propósitos y principios de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas y 
respetando plenamente y defendiendo la Declaración Universal de 
Derechos Humanos.

>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.

This is supposed to be the target of the Sao Paulo meeting.

To know how to adjust the technical and political governance of the 
internet to the society decision above.

The question I am to respond is two folded:
(1) is the /1net initiative contributing or opposing an efficient and 
resillient adjustment,
(2) have emerged from the debate contributions that could help that 
adjustment and its transition?

>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 ?

I am doing exactly what this 15 years old page says. One does not 
change something that works.
As Vint Cerf would say: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

> > 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.



More information about the discuss mailing list