[discuss] Problem statement P1

jefsey jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon Jan 20 02:06:15 UTC 2014

At 19:59 19/01/2014, George Sadowsky wrote:
>Ok, I'm willing to be persuaded that we might be better off keeping 
>the conversation together for awhile, as Milton suggests.  But I's 
>like to see some solid evidence of it.
>I propose an experiment.  Let's focus on a problem in Internet 
>governance and see how far we can get to a discussion of alternative 
>solutions, or partial solutions, while keeping the conversation 
>truthful, accurate, respectful, positive, and inclusive.  Let's see 
>how far we can get.


I can tell you how far we will get: exactly where we are now.  I am 
sorry for that, but this is because our problem is your solution.

Our problem is not the governance of the DNS, of the governance of 
the IANA (which, by the way extend outside of what you call the 
internet governance) but the belief that their problems can be solved 
separately. The Internet governance and architecture problem we face 
is very easy to diagnoze: too many people think, like you propose, 
that one can adopt a reductionist approach of networking/networked issues.

Why is this a problem? Because this can only work in a strictly 
monarchic (same hiearchic head for everything) network, i.e. in a 
star network. In a decentralized network there must be a unique 
doctrine (or incentive [money?]) to keep the hierarchical levels 
under a single approach [like a franchise, eg. ICANN], so what is 
true, correct and acceptable at some place can also ne true, correct 
and acceptable at an equivalent other place. This is obviously not 
thinkable in a distributed network.

This is exactly where the governance divide is.


1. those who think your proposition could help. For that they must:

1.1. either favor the status quo, not because of the past, of the US, 
etc. but because radical global monopoly situations like IETF, IANA, 
ICANN, etc. are needed and still exist in the proof of concept 
internet system they wish to retain.
1.2. or support balkanizations of some sort, i.e. centralized 
sub-networks where it is possible to keep a local space under a 
unique form of technical control coherence.

2. those who think that the problem is ... that an internet 
governance key person could hope a positive result from such proposition.

This is why talking of internet governance, technical governance, 
etc. is now outdated: the internet is too large, too wide, too 
diverse, too multilateral etc. for that.

Our true problem is the algorithms governance.

Humanity has created itself a digital environment, that it manages 
through algorithms. These algorithms progressively lead to what one 
calls the "algorithmic governance" of the people by the machines. We 
have to humanly/democratically govern the algorithms and the 
operators of this algorithmic governance. Otherwise, some day Obama 
will receive an automated mail telling him that the U.S. machines 
have, by algorithmic, decision started a cyberwar against the Chinese 
machines and destroyed Moscow and London by precaution.

Sao Paulo has no interest, if whatever it may discuss, one can 
algorithmicaly by-pass-it.
Sao Paulo has to be a first step toward algorithmic control.


More information about the discuss mailing list