[discuss] ICANN policy and "Internet Governance"
jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon Jan 6 14:36:51 UTC 2014
At 16:34 05/01/2014, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>Where some of us get confused is on what can then be done with that
>As a null hypothesis: maybe we're actually doing as well as we
>could; no system is going to be perfect in "giv[ing] voice to all
>those affected by those policies," even if that were both necessary
>and sufficient. (Do not mistake this for an assertion we *are* doing
>as well as we could. But the fact the current system isn't perfect
>is not by itself a proof that another one would be better; I'm
>interested in the question of *how* we improve things, not just in
>agreeing that we should.)
Your are right. This IS the question. The response is simple enough.
It is given by the WSIS unanimous demand for a people-centered
society (*). It simply means not to think "how the internet can be
better", but rather to think "how can I make the internet better for
myself and all my likes".
However, here you have a fundamental architectural problem: the
"internet that we document" is a "Host to Host", hence a network
centric, system; not a person centric one. Therefore, you can only
approve of it being improved all together, not on your own. RFC 3935
states that the IETF is for the Internet to work better. RFC 6852
states that working better is decided by the markets' economical
results. Very far from us; you and me.
However anew, the "internet that we actually use" has two strata.
1. One is to transport datagrams from end to end. This is host to
host. You saw yourself that we cannot improve it alone. Happily
enough it works reasonably well in providing value-added data
transport services (IETF) over bandwidth (ITU) plug to plug basic services.
2. The other one is *missing* in the "internet that we document", but
it is scattered all over the place in the "internet that we use" and
we need to improve. It is presenting the data in different secured,
formatted, controlled, translated, verified, processed, etc. manners.
Today, the networking layer six, i.e. presentation is purposely
missing in the end to end ARPA architecture. This is to guarantee,
protect, and take advantage from global access control.
Brian Carpenter has documented that everything else, i.e. including
the missing layer six, is to be carried at the fringe (RFC 1958).
Innovation at the fringe is one of the core value of the Internet.
IAB explained how OPES could be used for the job (RFC 3835) and the
WG/OPES published 11 RFCs (but never went as far as discussing their
The architectonic fundamental formula we use every day, which we know
since Aristotle, is the very basis of the systems theory and the core
reason of networking is: "the whole is more than the sum of its
parts". In an informational entropic universe, this is the only way
to get negentropy.
If you want the internet to provide more than the sum of what it
currently is providing, a way to explore that is to gather its
"broken missing layer" functions and services into a whole for
yourself (and your likes), a whole that will most probably give you
that more you long for:
1. This will not change a single bit in your relation with other
Limited Extension Security & Service (LESS) ends.
2. However, the layers that you may have plugged on your user side
(PLUS) to coalesce the different existing parts of the presentation
layer six (maybe in starting from a reshaping of your web browser
into a personal network use and relations supervisor) may provide you
the basis for things such as an application firewall, an IDNA
presentation tool, a local DNS resolver, a semantic gateway, like on
your iPhone, etc. until you discover that you have created your
internet front-fringe interoperational InterPLUS system.
Others may have their own ideas about the way to consolidate the
layer six functors into Intelligent Use Interfaces (IUI), and this is
why some kind of technical intergovernance between them and an
Intelligent Use Technical Forum could be of interest and result in
some kind of netix extension of posix.
Now, I certainly accept that this does question the very monopolistic
nature of the ICANN concept and may call for some more work on BINDX,
and this is why I publish this mail after many mails to alert ICANN
for years. Someone has written ICANN/ICP-3 with a correct vision and
understanding of the "double-dot" issue we missed in 1984. A
strategic technical decision is to be taken by ICANN that will decide
if they (you) keep blocking, and will be blown by, the internet
regular development, or if they(you) accompany and augment that
development through a correct understanding of the DNS (since 1978) metaphor.
The result will certainly be economic, societal, and political, but
the trigger is technical. The decision can be taken within or outside
of ICANN: if the evolution will be in cooperation, coopetition,
competition or even opposition. IMHO this will be settled at the end
of the Sao Paulo meeting, and you are one of those who will
participate to the decision. Or, maybe, will you be the one to take it.
To pursue this or not, on the 1NET list, on another list, or
privately will be your choice.
(*) There are three translations with different flavors that are my
perpetual quote "people centered, à caractère humain, centrada en la
persona". I do not master the arabic, chinese and russian character
sets so I only quote those three. I consider that this IS the
Information Society technical aesthetic from which ethitechnics can
More information about the discuss