[discuss] So-called alternate roots
jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon Jan 6 17:35:25 UTC 2014
>At 17:52 04/01/2014, Michel Gauthier wrote:
>I am only an analyst who professionally knows enough things about
>computers, network, people and projects of entrepreneurs I work with
>not to have predetermined positions, and to be open minded about
>innovation and what I report.
>At this time:
I fully understand that you are provoking people in telling them
their own truth in order to obtain some hints from the 600+ people
assembled on this list.
>1. I raised a few questions to know what 1NET was about and what
>people (who are experts or in charge in their field) really think.
From previous experience: we reached a similar situation with
end-users with the icannatlarge mailing list where we crossed the
1,200+ members mark. That led to the creation of ALAC as an ICANN
reaction. It is likely that /1NET is something similar leading to
another black hole, i.e. probably extending the ICANN monopolistic
innovation structural inability into the IoT area (you may know
better?). The alternative could be the creation of an IoT equivalent
to the W3C or Unicode. That is, however, unlikely as Fadi Chehade
does not seem to have the kind of agenda of a Berner-Lee or a Mark Davis.
There is no mystery about the teleonomy of all this (i.e. what should
happen, wished or not, from the current trends and possibilities).
The US internet attractor seems to keep tending to the missing layer
six architecture, protecting the NSA "no built-in security" 1978
internet architecturally limited model, thereby tricking the BRICS
into supporting their own digital colonization.
>2. I thank everyone for the responses I received. What I can report so far is:
>* 1NET represents a technical and political internet governance
>debate where Govs, Technicians, multilateral organizations, and
>civil society contributors are trying to consolidate their positions.
I understand that you consider "consolidating positions" as part of a
multi-consensus process, where each participant tries to build
objective/discussed coalitions. This is something that David Conrad
has shown to be outside of the ICANN vision. I feel, however, that
you are correct. The multi-consensus is about their tranquilization
concerning their TCP/IP Ivan Illich "radical monopoly". This
justifies their "protecting I*Use from IUse" consensus, i.e. the
Internet Use they sell, or know, from any more Intelligent Use (for
example, the introduction and extension of the missing layer six on
the user side) that would question the status quo.
>* without any consideration for sciences, reality, users, sovereign uses.
Correct. The ARPA digital environment, with its innovation capacity
scarcity planned to permit global control, has resulted by a lack
of room for innovation and its commercial economy in an area of
technical competition between manufacturers and their competent
customers, rather than cooperation. This is a situation that the
status quo wants to protect or has now abandoned to the market
leadership (economy driven internet architecture as per RFC 6852).
>The same for DNS, IPv6/IPv4, networking architecture, etc.
This will be the same for every part of the whole ARPA architectonic.
The reason for the Internet's success and growing tensions is the
consistency of its technical governance. These tensions have been
identified by the IAB in RFC 3869 and consummated in RFC 6852.
>* one does not know who to eventually trust and why. MSism means
>political and technical positions, not decisions by others, but by oneself.
The commercial bias documented in RFC 3869 called for non-commercial
contributions. They could have been by Govs and by FLOSS lead-users.
Commercial influence was, so far, good enough against lead-users (I
experimented it through the difficulty that I met in order to obtain
the a-minima linguistic consensuses to delay a cultural war). Govs
have not been known, so far, to oppose the pseudo-civil-society
AstroTurf supported by M$, Google, etc. with the NSA
using/cooperating with them against privacy.
>3. The only consensus (actually opposed by everyone's "it cannot
>work") is that one should be able to test everything. It is also not
>documented by any RFC or charter about using the internet as its own
>test-bed for experimenting what is technically and politically disputed.
I only partly agree with this. I worked on an "intertest" I_D. It was
interesting to see that the basic material came from ICANN ICP-3 and
Brian Carpenter. IMHO, Brian Carpenter and Russ Housley are among the
people who could best help in leading us through the necessary
However, there is a need for them to understand before the digital
names semiotics. This is because the DNS, as a "brain to technology
mecalanguage", is probably the easiest path to analyze the ARPA
architectural BUG of which the whole internet governance still suffers.
I think this is possible since the ICANN author who wrote ICP-3
understood the reality that is hidden by the "single-dot" confusion
that we falled into in 1984. The difficulty in explaining it is the
terminology that confused us at the time which still remains, and the
lack of an RFC on intertetchnology.
Vint Cerf wrote on several occasions that his project for the
internet was also intertechnology oriented: yet I have not found any
architectural or even operational RFC on technology bridges/gateways.
More information about the discuss