[discuss] ICANN policy and "Internet Governance"
jefsey at jefsey.com
Tue Jan 7 12:39:28 UTC 2014
At 16:21 06/01/2014, nathalie coupet wrote:
>Could you explain what nentropy means in this context? Also, could
>you explain what changes you would like to see happen within the 6th
>layer in order to make the Internet more person-centric?
As a general rule, the Universe flows from order to disorder
(entropy). Organization opposes disorder. The "Whole>sum(parts)"
formula means that when you assemble any scattered parts you usually
get mutual autocatalysis and/or synergy.
1. the ARPANET internetting
In documenting the ARPANET internetting, Vint Cerf chose limitations
permitting to clearly identify the way a "catenet" system, a concept
imagined in a French Gov Research context by Louis Pouzin, had to be
designed to be tested in a pragmatic, American military context.
The main limitations that Vint Cerf introduced to that end were:
- a single uniform global (geographic world, as in American language)
- and a denial of the French language "globalité" (negentropic whole)
of which the support is rooted in the OSI layer six, mostly
documented by Louis Pouzin's people and BBN at the CCITT (ITU-T).
Basically, this reduced the possibility of:
- myriads of cross-formatting, encryption, language translation, etc.
services to potentially active datagrams exchanges between smart
front-ends of any architecture
- to the sole plain ASCII text dumb, passive datagrams for end to end
transport between TCP/IP hosts.
This was the correct thing to do for a proof of concept. Moreover,
Vint Cerf did not oppose the idea of developing things further. In
order to keep this possible, as he used the catenet idea of a network
of "local networks", he explained that he used "local" in a "loose
sense". However, a "loose sense" is not something that engineers,
merchants, and computers understand easily. This is what I call the
BUG of the Internet: keeping the strict local sense instead of
loosening it as the technology was showing its robustness, bogging it
down to a unique, uniform globality.
2. The 1984 misunderstanding
The same "global/globalité" misunderstanding played an equivalent
role in 1984 when we connected the Internet to the world digital
naming system. The trick that was found to match (a) open name spaces
between intelligent users and process names and (b) a name space
restricted to host address aliases was to use a "dot".
* On the Internet side, that "." was understood as the unique world
global root (hence the hierarchical vision),
* while on our world public system it was just the connecting point
of another concatenated network in our open infinite heterarchical
real, virtual, etc. "globalité", as initially mandated by the USG and
then with the consensus of the monopolies this naming interconnected
using indifferently names AND addresses for processes (we supported
X.121 addresses as numeric names, what permitted us to convert the
world to X.121. compatibility in two years a two persons very
part-time job). Bob Kahn got a similar approach with handles as does
CCN (content centered networking).
Today, we would have no IG/DNS problem if we had identified, for the
things to be fully clear, that we actually had a "double dot". The
heterarchical universal digital naming space that we created (under
an FCC license) is a superset of the hierarchical domain name system
created by the ARPA project.
3. Adressing the common difficulty
If you grasp the above as architectonical metaphors, you understand
that the networking synergy is not only in geography, business,
politics, consumers, etc. but also in architecture, semantics,
intellition, persons, etc. i.e. everywhere. This is the very nature
of networked models. However, if you come from the computer world
(HOSTS), this is actually switching from a vision of an engineer to a
vision of an architect. This is certainly NOT easy.
However, the person who wrote the ICANN/ICP-3 has obviously done it.
4. The extraordinary consistency of the IETF Internet
Now, those who have written RFCs have documented most of the
necessary pieces to address this difficulty without changing a single bit.
How is that?
This is because the Internet design (RFC 1958) is robust, end to end,
pushing everything else at the fringe, which permits it with
simplicity (RFC 3949) to support any possible diversity.
We identified how it does this at the WG/INDA2008 chaired by Vint
Cerf (in that case, it was linguistic diversity and the problem was
again the support of the
French language in an English language
context). The internet supports diversity at its fringe, i.e. by
subsidiarity (as is exemplified by RFC 5895) at the interface i.e.
neither outside, nor inside either (diversity leaves the inside end
to end uniformity untouched). Subsidiarity is what permits synergy,
and uniformity is what makes the internet successfully robustness.
5. The resolution flow
Then, once this is accepted in your mind, there is nothing more to
do. Just to follow what an open networked thinking (and software
languages progress) will permit:
* locating and consolidating layer 6 on the fringe of the user side,
where many of its parts are already proposed, but most probably not
fully efficiently scattered: as Brian said to do it (intelligent
presentation [intellition] on the fringe).
* paying attention to the full capacity and to many other application
oriented documents to further complexify things [not easy], i.e. to
simplify in networking and compacting complicacy. To understand what
this use of "complexity" means: a Word page is simple to read as a
single file. However, its zip file distributed in several packets is
complex, but it travels faster and its packets can be multihomed for
better protection against snooping.
* scaling conceptual application networking within time, data,
metadata, and syllodata (conditional links between linked data)
dimensions for more power, protection, semantics, speed, etc.
6.1. From past experience,
the simplest way is to accept things as they come in their diversity
rather than wanting to redesign the world with our own ego's logic.
This has a very well-known name: to be smart and enjoy intelligence.
This is exciting, fun, and creative. This is the way innovation and
youth usually proceed.
The Tymnet designers proceeded that way by chance, because they were
self- funding themselves in the process, while the network capacity
increased (they started at 110 bauds in 1968). They called it
"agoric" because it was for them like extracting the best technical
result from the agora (local diversified machines and customers
community) of reality. 2,200 years before other people did the same
trying to extract the best from humans on Athens' agora (local
meeting market place). They called it "democracy".
6.2. 2. This is NOT the status quo.
So there will be huge forces against it in addition to the difficulty
to complexify (i.e. to agorically simplify). This is because layer
six is by nature the place to support intelligent presentation
[intellition] within diversity; for example:
* putting competition in naming solutions (not in names),
* insuring privacy (most of the bits you receive may never have been
This is a most probable challenging change in the economy of many
things. However, people are ready: RFC 6852 OpenStand states that
technology is to be market economy driven. My opposition to it is
that there is no final appeal process to protect the users' interest,
just in the ICANN radical monopoly vision (cf. Ivan Illich).
In a nutshell, it is:
* the end of the end to end transport and transport related
applications (communication) as the network's highest layers,
* and the entry to the intellition of the digisphere (i.e. where
humans think in quantum discontinuities).
We need it in nanotechnologies, big data, biology, content centric
networking, semantic processing, communication protection,
intercomprehension better facilitation, application firewalling, etc.
The experimentation that Vint started 40 years ago was positively
terminated by the NSA.
- (1) Yes! His first phase worked quite well. And they fully succeed
in mastering it.
- (2) We are late in proceeding an architectural step(s) further. So
we can empower ourselves against them.
The question is: will we do it together or by fighting one another?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss