[discuss] Governmental participation (Was: Problem definition 1, v5)

[JFC Morfin]

John, Joseph,

I am quite busy with some revamping of my computers system so I have 
not had much time to seriously respond to a series of key questions 
of Joseph (attached) where Brian and Nathalie were pertinent 
contributors. Your "not to be disdained" contribution adds in its way 
to Joseph's questions. My ongoing working responses may lead to an 
I_D or two and an international summer BarCamp that I will announce 
in a few days.


Actually the problem we face is easy enough to diagnose after 
Poincaré, Einstein and with the the NSA PRISM example in mind.

The networking paradigm that most are still using is 
classic/Newtonian. Since Poincaré, we know however that an n-nodes 
network revolves around attractors and, since Einstein, we have 
integrated that into our physical world attractors who are linked in 
part to the time 4th dimension. This has a dramatic impact on 
politics for a simple reason: along Aristotle, policy is THE 
architectonic science that since Athens (democracy) networks the 
three archons who replace the monarch (archon eponymous [including 
economy], archon basileus ["interior": justice, state religion] and 
archon polemarch ["exterior": war, diplomacy]). Einstein has actually 
added the political responsibility of "ulterior", and technology has 
added the huge architectonical extension of our capacity to build a 
new time-disputed [innovation vs. entropy] environment, which has its 
own three dimensions (data [i.e. knowledge], metadata [data on data, 
i.e. science)], and syllodata [data between (linked) data) i.e. 
intelligence comprehension]).

What we are discussing are the missing archeon architarch's functions 
(nationally and internationally, knowing that the "city" description 
(kingdoms,nations, nation-states, etc.) is itself evaluating.

In this new 7D world, common good oriented policy 3D based democratic 
systems are not obsolete but incompletely scale, and in our current 
implementation of economy is no longer based on the satisfaction of 
everybody's needs under the State "care" (now extended to 
"precaution" in reference to the technological ulterior impact), but 
rather on the satisfaction of the merchants (ab)using salespeople and 
workers. The adaptation to this situation calls for architectonic 
considerations (i.e. deeper than their resolution in an emerging 
paradigm, e.g. RFC 6852).

This consideration should lead us to at least two identifications:

1. the world stewardship uses three main ruling layers: 
norms/constitution, standard/law, contract/best-practices. What we 
call governance relates to the standard/law mid-term layer. We seem to tend:

1.1.  to confuse its discussion with norms/constitutional 
concordance, long-term conventions (technologies), or principles

1.2.  and to pollute with short-term cases. We need a real conceptual 
metanoia (change of one's mind to adapt to the new reality).

2. the non-Einstenian change results from the digital 
renormalization, i.e. the discovery that:

2.1. we can replace Euclidian points [unity] to point continuity by 
Jacquard's pixel discontinuity that we can share with machines 
(punching: Bouchon) binary (Leibnitz) treated by Turing machines.

2.2. the universe is built along a simple formula that we have known 
since Aristotle but could not explain until Carnot, Fuller, and 
Shannon: "the whole is more than the sum of its parts [negentropy] 
which is more than the time preceding sum [entropy]"; the reason for 
this is the agoric (discipline of agoras as spaces of autonomous 
telematons) synergy (sometimes helped by catalysis, and delayed by 
hysteresis). The smallest part of the universe we can imagine is the 
difference between two successive quantum microstates (we identify to 
a bit in information, affected by negentropic/entropic potentiality 
in intellition [cf. infra]).

Norbert Wiener has perfectly identified the resulting problem: "we 
created the machine to our image" (this has added their dimensions to 
our anthropos+bot universe). We can add that we created to them the 
likeness of a few of them.

Today, our problem is to make all the machines to the likeness of 
each person (and other machines) and provide every man/woman the 
mastering of the continuities [intellition] of his/her digisphere's 
discontinuities [information], subjectively (personal intelligence) 
and objectively (communication of others' inputs), for them to freely 
conduct their projective course (resulting in ecosystemic emergence)

As a result, we can spend a lot of time on ICANN oriented/coordinated 
rhetoric as we have done for 15 years: this may help to better define 
and filter the issues, but we will achieve nothing without the 
appropriate architectonic methodology.

The problem is that the thinking tools that we use are out scaled by 
the complexity of the problem itself (i.e. networking). Networking is 
about links i.e. "lects". Since Aristotle (again), we have meshed 
thinking out of pure searching for rhetoric adhesion through 
dialectic syllogisms (and chains of syllogisms [sorites]) that lead 
to conclusions. Wiener made us identify the thinking atom (unit), 
i.e. the monolectic cybernetics where action leads to reaction. When 
Norman Hardy and co. started designing Tymnet, out of return on 
investment necessity, they actually acknowledged the polylectic 
nature of a networked ecosystem (agora) and of its return on man/hour 
and infrastructural investment. It is noteworthy that when they 
incorporated after the counter-strategic acquisition of 
Tymnet/Tymshare they created "Agorics Inc." with key contributions in 
current systems (Hurd, Midori) security.

We need an agoric thinking methodology, economy, and technology 
introducing the intellition continuity between the information 
discontinuity and the communication pre-continuity building. The 
thinking methodology is workable, the technology tools are available, 
PRISM shows that intellition is THE key product, and its location (on 
the fringe) between communications and information was identified by Brian.

To answer in part the question of Nathalie: the internet is an 
available "sub-network" (cf. IEN 78) set for this solution. It was a 
proof of concept to prove the validity of Louis Pouzin's catenet 
concept. It was supposed to go further: this is what we are confronted to.

These are still missing today:
* a general model,
* its normative description,
* some standardization examples,
* an open co-operation running mode,
* running mode validation prototypes in the existing context (i.e. 
the Internet),
* IMHO this is why we need a technical governance agreement on the 
way to use the internet as its own test-bed,
* to start with a missing presentation layer six consolidation (as 
illustrated by RFC 5895) to root a powerful active content oriented 
fringe to fringe architectural offshoot (at this stage we are totally 
outside of what is today called the internet of the IG being 
discussed [Note: I never saw any IG consideration of OPES]).

Last, we have to remember two things:
1. the internet example is a proof of concept based on limitations to 
passive text in datagrams, i.e. with no format diversity and active 
content (layer six presentation, difference between data [given data: 
information plex], capta [received i.e. communication plex]) and 
tracta [network processed intellition plex]. The governance of the 
internet is quite a limited basis of experience when we want to 
discuss its societal impact.

2. that "law = code" also means "code = law", which in turn means 
that technical concordance is of the essence to political governance 
and usership MSist operation management (co-operance). Also that code 
- law = 0, i.e. chaos emptiness from which myriads of "(1)+(-1)" can 
proceed (what is not entirely the case in a fractal deterministic 
chaos, as "deterministic" means that law>0).

jfc


>At 09:26 23/01/2014, Joseph Alhadeff wrote:
>What does your concept of mutlistakeholder enhanced cooperation look 
>like operationally and are these more encompassing organizational 
>structures designed to be effective and efficient in either 
>decision-making or running some of the DNS operations?  The concept 
>of stability is of great importance, as you noted, and some proposed 
>solutions do raise questions related to stability.  It would be of 
>great utility for alternate proposals to include descriptions of 
>operational dimensions and for commentators to reaffirm the need to 
>assure continued operational stability of the Net, including the 
>need to review and pressure test before changes are 
>implemented.  Reverting to a previous post, take the Hippocratic 
>oath approach; first do no harm...
>Best
>Joe


>On Jan 25, 2014, at 6:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
> > Thank you John, for this detailled response. I find myself 
> agreeing with most of what you said. I also like the example of the 
> poorly engineered USB charger that you used to illustrate a case 
> where standard setting and various public policy issues (in terms 
> of legal requirements or other types of public responsibilities) intersect.
> >
> > I guess what you are indirectly saying is that we should discuss 
> the role and type of participation of governments in concrete terms 
> instead of remaining on a basis of abstract principles. Makes sense to me :-)
>
>Correct - we are discussing models for more effective Internet 
>coordination, so I
>will elaborate a bit - recognizing that this is but a _model_, 
>whereas the real
>world also has governments that may not always represent the will of 
>their people
>in their actions, there are those folks who engage on a disingenuous 
>basis, etc.
>
>Regardless of what this community collectively decides, governments 
>will perceive
>certain public policy responsibilities, and will seek solutions for 
>fulling those
>responsibilities.  I see two distinct roles for government here: the 
>traditional
>lawmaking/regulation, and participation in Internet technical 
>coordination bodies
>to facilitate awareness of areas of potential intersection.
>
>Traditional expression of governmental public policy 
>responsibilities takes the form
>of passing laws, directives, and regulations; that model doesn't 
>work very well with
>respect to the wonderful global Internet, since often the parties 
>you seek to affect
>(towards your particular public policy requirement) are in other 
>jurisdictions.
>Note - this is not just intergovernmental issue; even within a given 
>country, you may
>have a complicated hierarchy of state/county/local regulations which 
>theoretically
>could impact Internet services and their usage.
>
>Another problem with the lawmaking/regulatory model approach is the need for
>specificity in regulation, i.e. you often have to define how things work in
>some detail, in order to proceed with regulation over a certain aspect which
>of concern from a public policy perspective.  This approach works with fairly
>stable and predictable industries, but the Internet is neither of those, and
>is subject to both rapid evolution and remarkable innovation.  Regulation of
>how specific mechanisms or components of the Internet should work is 
>inherently
>fraught with risk, because what a static web site today may be an interactive
>dynamically loaded application tomorrow, a smart phone application the next
>day, and may involve multiple models of information sharing and caching which
>will be different next year.  Internet technologies evolve very quickly, and
>regulatory efforts towards public policy goals are likely to become overtaken
>by events at Internet speed...
>
>The combination of Internet's global scope and rapid pace of change make it
>very difficult to have meaningful lawmaking/regulation; some might even argue
>that the Internet is inherently "lawless" as result and must remain so by its
>very nature.
>
>I do not believe it is the case, and in fact, believe that the Internet must
>continue to mature if it is to hold a fundamental role in economic and social
>development, but that the level of government involvement via their classic
>authoritative role must be used very sparingly. In particular, given the
>challenges noted above, governments are going to need to get used to two
>significant differences from their traditional roles when it comes to the
>Internet: first, that it will be necessary to work with other governments to
>find common public policy principles in order to have meaningful impact in
>their actions, and second, that it will be necessary to work at the higher
>levels of principles, norms, and standards rather than via attempts at direct
>and specific Internet regulation.
>
>For example, an broad-based intergovernmental determination that 
>"personal data
>can only be gathered for a legitimate purpose and must be protected 
>from misuse"
>is a helpful expression of a public policy requirement, even if such never
>specifically mentions the "Internet", "web users", "browsers" or 
>"ISPs" in its
>formulation.  Certainly great care is needed during the formation of 
>such public
>policy directives (to make sure that there is ample ability for comment and
>participation) given that the result will have mandatory compliance aspects,
>but if the final result is both high level and enjoys widespread geographic
>support, then it will have a real and material impact on the development of
>Internet protocols and practices for administration of the related protocol
>registries, even though these Internet standards and practices are global in
>scope and not simply regional.
>
>It is far better when governments can express their requirements in 
>high-level
>principles, as these can be readily considered and incorporated into many of
>the Internet coordination activities that make take place to keep the Internet
>running. This type of coordination is what governmental liaison groups should
>work on, i.e. maintaining awareness of the various Internet 
>coordination activities
>that are underway (DNS policy development, RIR policy development, significant
>IETF protocol development) and noting the existence of any known 
>multinational
>(or national) standards/norms/directives which the coordination bodies should
>regard in their activities.
>
> > As far as domain names are concerned, internet identifier 
> coordination seems to affect trademark rights and would thus 
> justify a role for governments beyond a mere informational and 
> collaborative status or do I missunderstand you here?
>
>If you can find a broad-based high-level statement of principles (that many
>governments agree upon) which could be applied to globally visible names on
>the Internet, that might be the case.  To my knowledge, there is no cohesive
>view among governments regarding globally visible marks (which all Internet
>identifiers are by definition) so I would be very surprised if governments
>could get together to provide a uniform set of norms and standards in this
>case.   The Internet does not magically bring about alignment among nation-
>states regarding their underlying beliefs and principles; it is simply the
>mechanism by which these differences in in views are now readily apparent
>due to instantaneous communications between any two parties globally.
>
>In cases where there are no broadly agreed principles, then you are left with
>either no public policy framework or each country supply its own via inferior
>national regulation as noted above. (This alone would appear to give 
>give good
>reason for governments to work more closely together to define common public
>policy principles, but we haven't actually seen that occurring to date...)
>
> > When it comes to IP addresses and the RIRs, one could argue that 
> a more active involvement of governments could have accelerated the 
> deployment of IPv6 addresses. I mention this example because I ask 
> myself whether issues of effectiveness/efficieny should also play a 
> role when we talk about public-private collaboration in IG.
>
>Again, if you can get a broad base of governments to agree to _high-level_
>public policy standards/norms in this area, then it would be applicable to
>the Internet. I do have a personal view that IPv6 enablement of all content
>on the Internet is absolutely essential for the Internet's continued success,
>but that's not a high-level public policy goal.  The closest high-level goal
>that I can conceive of would be "Information intended to be publicly 
>reachable
>should be made available to the broadest possible community, and presently
>this means via the Internet over both of its production networking protocols
>(IPv4, IPv6)"  Is there agreement among all countries that this is the case?
>I do not believe so, but it any case, a discussion of mandatory compliance in
>such matters creates obligations beyond those strictly necessary for 
>technical
>coordination, and on parties which are not participants in the 
>Internet technical
>coordination bodies.  In my opinion, that would mean that it should 
>take place
>outside of the Internet identifier coordination bodies (in a manner 
>similar to
>the discussion of regulation to avoid fires from faulty power supplies)  This
>belief is not driven by the desire that public policy matters are relevant to
>the Internet (i.e. "the industry should be left alone"), but instead 
>the desire
>that any mandatory controls driven by public policy concerns are discussed in
>a manner and in forums which are actually appropriate for 
>lawmaking/regulation.
>
>I do not believe that the organizations involved in Internet identifier
>coordination (or Internet protocol standards development) have an inherent
>mandate to determine best public policy when it comes to parties not involved
>in the technical coordination system and/or requirements which go beyond the
>minimal necessary for that coordination. Instead, the requirement is to give
>due regard to any high-level inter-governmental public policy standards and
>norms which may be applicable to their coordination and development efforts.
>Governments are welcome participants such coordination efforts, with the
>recognition that they can help in raising awareness of any widely-applicable
>standards and norms during this process.  If we do intend for the mandate of
>technical coordination bodies to extend beyond the minimum necessary and to
>have impacts on uninvolved parties, then we need to very carefully decide
>what controls, protections, and mechanisms must be in place to provide
>maximal accountability to that much broader impacted community.
>
>Thanks!
>/John
>
>Disclaimer: My views alone (and likely to be held in disdain by 
>anyone but me ;-)