[discuss] Problem statement P1
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 is now outdated: the internet is too large, too wide, too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
Sao Paulo has to be a first step toward algorithmic control.
More information about the discuss