[discuss] ICANN policy and "Internet Governance"

Mawaki Chango kichango at gmail.com
Mon Jan 6 17:57:17 UTC 2014


Two questions:

1. Have you implemented for yourself what you just described as gathering
the ""broken missing layer" functions and services into a whole"?

2. Do you think there is the slightest possibility to make it so that any
user lambda, with some determination for sure, would be able to implement
all the steps needed to realize that for themselves? If not what would it
take --apart from the need to wrestle with a lot of "engineerese" (as
compared to 'legalese')?


 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
*Mawaki Chango, PhD*
*Founder & Principal, DIGILEXIS*
m.chango at digilexis.com
Skype: digilexis

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:36 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> At 16:34 05/01/2014, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> Where some of us get confused is on what can then be done with that
>> aspiration.
>> 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.)
> Dear Suzanne,
> 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 meta-networking yet).
> 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.
> Best,
> jfc
> (*) 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 only proceed.
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140106/3f831604/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list