[discuss] Br official site launched

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Wed Jan 29 02:52:08 UTC 2014

At 06:21 28/01/2014, parminder wrote:
>Jeremy, you are shouting in the wilderness. No one is 
>listening!  This particular game is lost. You know it. And we, as in 
>civil society, lost it ourselves... There is nothing to be done 
>now.. Other than perhaps, to introspect, what happened, why, and 
>which actors did what.. But then we are the good people of civil 
>society and should not mouth bad words, or suspect conspiracies and so on....

Nothing is lost, it was a framing. But a Brian would say: a recursive 
framing. It is framing itself, etc. This calls for urgent attention 
and consideration.


Let us understand: if this was *not* a plan under USG influence, it 
means that at this time the reality of the IG momentum is only made 
of the momentums of this list and of the Brazilian team. And WE, on 
this /1NET list, are actually RESPONSIBLE for the Internet!

How is this be possible?

There would be no Sao Paulo meeting without Fadi meeting with Dilma. 
This is why the whole thing is pure luck: after Snowdenia distraught 
I* establishment, they chose to meet in Montevideo at Raul's 
invitation (or turn?), Fadi stopped over on his way back to say 
"hello!" to Dilma, got the "super idea of a multilateral meeting with 
the Telcos of the family", and Dilma found in her calendar that she 
could spare two days in April. This is how the meeting has not been 
infuenced by the USG and will only be a GS1/Telcos meeting on:

- the technical and IG requirements of the economy of the internet 
(as per RFC 6852), i.e. how Telcos can make good money on the 
Internet of things through an ONS/DNS deal. Fair enough.
- the way to assign the RFC 6852 "huge bounty" resulting from the USG 
financial investement in the Internet.

This is an positive situation: end of the internet singularity. Just 
a Telcos' (i.e. ITU) infrastructure with some IETF protocols to be 
used to coordinate people and machines in the best way to produce and 
purchase. This is what we collectively have to endorse and organize, 
together with CGI.br, at least until the Sao Paulo meeting advises 
all of us on the way to best pursue.


This has nothing to do with any conspiracy theory or phobia.

Now, we have to consider the Governments' legacy that we inherit 
since, as /1NET members, we are now in charge of half the IG with CGI.br.

First, I would suggest everyone to read the studies of Sandra Braman 
concerning the way the US political vision has oriented the RFCs and 
the Internet. This may help us understanding why the USG has removed 
itself from the picture after having definitely been exposed by Edward Snowden.

Then, let us review the situation as it developed. At the beginning 
there was Leibnitz, Jacquard, and Chappe. More recently, people all 
over the world started being interested in making computers 
communicate along Claude Shannon's theory.

- The initial concepts are from the UK (Davis). Four other 
architectural legacies are to be remembered: the ARPANET project, 
Tymnet (1968 - Norm Hardy), Cyclades (1972 Louis Pouzin), the layer 
pile of Michel Elie and its formalization in the OSI Model (Hughes 
Zimmerman, Barry Westler, Rémi Després, John Day, etc.).

- This was amalgamated into a double proof of concept by Vint Cerf 
(EIN 48, in 1978):
    - "phase one" (1st motivation) to explore the Louis Pouzin's 
catenet concept
    - "phase two" (2nd motivation) to provide multitechnology 
support. What Tymnet made operational/commercial worldwide through 
the ISIS technology.

The French and US governments' political decisions have definitly 
influenced these projects.

- The French Louis Pouzin Cyclades project was interrupted in 1978. 
The French Gov favored Rémi Desprès' Transpac which became the 
largest public packet switch network in the world. This was part of 
the plan to develop the French telematics and computer industry;

- similarly, the USG pushed for the counter-strategic acquisition of 
Tymnet by McDonnell Douglas and favor TCP/IP as a technology financed 
by US military R&D and Unix oriented industrial establishment.

These are facts of which the actors are on this list and they can 
contradict me if untrue. I have no objection to political influence 
if it is useful. The same goes for commercial influence. My priority 
is the satisfaction of the persons/citizens/users' needs and their protection.


Since the Govs (i.e. USG and other e-leading countries) have 
given-up, and the responsibility is in /1NET hands, we have to assess 
the situation and decide how to proceed.

At the current stage of the internet technology development:

1. the response to the proof of concept first phase (global catenet) 
is overwhelmingly positive.

2. the second phase is bogged down in a commercially influenced 
architectural status quo that was documented by the IAB in RFC 3869 
("if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future 
Internet research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be 
in trouble"). The reason for that is "in addition to issues about 
which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the 
content of the research, for example".

Technically, these problems are related to the lack/implementation of 
layer six (presentation). This layer was not implemented in phase one 
and was, therefore, to be introduced in phase two. It is now missing: 
this layer is the dedicated place for multilinguistics, security, 
cross technology/policy/use concerns, format presentation, online 
intelligence, etc. Actually most of the things the IG is to deal with 
and their limited and separated support make convenient for snooping, 
spam and intrusion.

An additional problem that we have is that we do not trust anymore::
- the "phase one" technology quality (it was shown to be so 
vulnerable by/to its co-designer NSA).
- those who designed it and brought us where we are (by plan or lack 
of precaution)
- those who think they know how to restore trust: why did they not 
implement their ideas before?
- all those who still only discuss "phase one" issues on the /1NET 
mailing list.

RFC 3869 states: "The IAB believes that it would be helpful for 
governments and other non-commercial sponsors to increase their 
funding of both basic research and applied research relating to the 
Internet, and to sustain these funding levels going forward." This 
means that not only Europeans are interested in discussing the 
stewardship (including its governance) and the funding of the phase 
two of the internet as a proof of concept. In particular, to develop, 
finance and promote a FLOSS internet/digisphere oriented FLOSS open 
R&D. If we can prove that it will develop employment, development, 
and civil stability, I suspect that every "middle"-Gov will 
contribute and coders from everywhere including developing countries 
will participate.


As being in charge, we have to do better than our predecessors and 
engage boldly in "phase two".

The internet is documented by the IETF. The IETF has clearly 
indicated in response to several appeals of mine over the years that 
it was only responsible for end to end standards; while being 
certainly interested, but not responsible, by the fringe to fringe 
area related work. As a result was created IUCG at IETF in order to 
permit FLOSS to cooperate to Internet innovation from a lead user perspective.

 From this I will pose some questions that we should try to debate 
and respond to:

-          Is the MSism we want to practice also including lead 
users, registrants, end-users?
-          Is the IG subject to the Article 21.1 of the Human Rights 
-          are we trying to coordinate fringe to fringe 
standardization as a SDO enhanced cooperation or do we prefer each 
architectonic vision to proceed independently?
-          has the OpenStand/RFC 6852 modified the IAB/IETF core 
values as documented in RFC 3935?
-          how do we want to handle a cross architecture technical 
dialog, implementation, and support (e.g. ONS and DNS).
-          how do we define and control the testing constraints 
imposed on new projects' experimentation (as per ICP-3).
-          do we want to institutionalize the R&D participation of 
lead users and FLOSS? How?
-          should the IANA become ISO 19763 conformant and integrated 
in the world referential systems?


It would interesting if /1NET were to bring some practical MS-IG 
experience to Sao Paulo. The ongoing debate on the DNS root has 
emphasized that the root data should be collectively governed through 
an MS framework. A proposition could then be that we endorse a three 
step simple plan:

-          A Windows BIND installation guide and installer, including 
the necessary default files for a local copy of the class IN root 
ensuring the security, robustness, and metadata protection of the DNS 
for everyone.

-          An ICANN/IANA globalization major step ahead: an MS-IG 
mechanism for a collective management and update of the entries in 
the root file. The first decision that we could take is to include 
the ISO 639 codes for languages as langTLDs, as ISO 3166 codes are 
used for ccTLDs.

-          Once the collectivities' needs are satisfied (countries 
and languages), one could accommodate the commercial and vanity TLDs 
without the risk of having private/interests conflicting with 
sovereign and collective rights.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140129/038488fb/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list