[discuss] Net Neutrality: Perhaps the FCC is the wrong agency?

Secretariat secretariat at vgnso.org
Sun Jun 8 17:50:34 UTC 2014

At 05:04 07/06/2014, willi uebelherr wrote:
>Dear JFC.
>i would like know your name. I don't like any synonyms. But i write 
>this answer because i have some caveats. Not big, but important.

jean-françois c. morfin

>On the end you wrote:
>"..., therefore this is why we need to prepare ourselves."
>This is a general necessity. Independent of any organisation in the 
>internet construction.

Yes. This is formalized in the French Constitution as a citizen's 
duty along the precautionary principle.

>"As I have mentionned the WSIS has decided that the information 
>society (hence its systems) was to be people centered / à caractère 
>humain / centrada en la persona."
>This is our general base. The people are important and not any 
>institution. We can disolve all institutions and organisations, what 
>we do not need.

Yes. However, what is important is that a person was up-to-now 
considered as a cpnsistent continuity from birth to death under the 
concept of "personality". Now, it is also considered as a very large 
succession of microstates (time in quantum physics) and of 
discotinuities (data, metadata [data on data] and syllodata [data 
between linked data] under the form of genome, semantic processing, 
big data, etc. bits) leading to the concept of "digitality" assembled 
under the notions of information, transported by communication and 
understood by intellition. We have to explore, understand, accomodate 
and serve that digitality with its relations, memory, 
cooperation/competition, etc. and conflicts.

>"The real issue would be a unique universal numbering plan we could 
>use everywhere in the digisphere, probably based upon a specialized DNS zone."
>For what we need a specialized DNS zone? We have only one. We have 
>to transform the URL from text to number and reverse. No more.

I suppose you mean space? There are 45000 root zones. The Internet 
domain name system is only a tiny portion of the whole digital 
namming space (http://dnsa.org).

>"The main thing is to compile the RFCs from a Independent User 
>(IUser) point of view in order to clearly determine what is already 
>reserved by the IETF/IANA and what is available to users. In the DNS 
>and addressing areas."
>Never, my friend. All is available to the users.


>On the begin of your answer you wrote:
>"... I do not know if this is something usable. My worry is however 
>the ocean waste of addresses."
>We have always the same question. Also today. How we organize it? We 
>have 64 bit for the global address. And we have 64 bit for our local 
>address. The IPv6 use only 64 bits. The rest are address modifiers.

This is not so simple. Otherwise there would be a working alternative 
solution. The internet develops by experimentation: working code and 
living mode.

>In an earlier mail i formulate the global resolution. Earth surface 
>/ 2^64. It is small enough. And local 2^64? I think, never any local 
>network with all hosts and sensor devices can use this space.

Question is first to know the needed addressing system. LISP is an 
interesting thing. Give me first a exhaustive, compact and clear IPv6 
description instead of hundreds of RFCs so we might consider what 
they actually implement we may have to use and certainly to accomodate.

>But the local addressing scheme is totally independent from any 
>globally principle. The local people can use, what they want.

They do. But this does not prevent them from being smart. There are 
three issues at least: localisation, identification and routing. 
Nothing requires to consider them the same way when you are a network 
designer and a network user. VGNs are about network use local (VPN), 
internal (intranet), external (extranet), and global optimization.


>many greetings, willi
>Jinotepe, Nicaragua
>Am 05/06/2014 18:58, schrieb FSP4NET:
>>At 17:23 04/06/2014, willi uebelherr wrote:
>>> > In this aggregate of Masters' VGN and Lasters'VGN that makes the
>>> > internet there is no core. It is purely distributed and meshed.
>>> > There is therefore the need to address things through an
>>> > architectonics referential system, i.e. a system which does not
>>> > depend on people, but on the universe itself or at least to a
>>> > sufficiently stable and large part of it, i.e. a purely algorithmic
>>> > hazardous portion of it.
>>>Yes, this is my intention. And for that that i propose the geografical
>>>defined IP address to make this very easy, because then we don't need
>>>any Internet Gouvernance. We act together based on our common interest
>>>for a free communication overall over the planet. A free communication
>>>system for the free access to free knowledge for all people of our
>>>(free) world.
>>I have not made the computation of the room available in an IPv6 scheme.
>>There are the GSM coordinates already in wide use. I do not know if this
>>is something usable. My worry is however the ocean waste of addresses.
>>This is why I am interested in a Fuller's dimaxion map. Another
>>interesting approach is simply to use ... prefix+telephone
>>numbers+extensions : this roughly takes into account the network and
>>democraphic topology.
>>As I have mentionned the WSIS has decided that the information society
>>(hence its systems) was to be people centered/à caractère
>>humain/centrada en la persona. Everyone and every corporation now has
>>one or several téléphone numbers. There is an ENUM support by the DNS
>>and probably several things to do to.
>>If you are interested in it, this belongs to the various possibilities
>>that I wiwh to consider IRT to my suggestion "Happy-IP". The real issue
>>would be a unique universal numbering plan we could use everywhere in
>>the digisphere, probably based upon a specialized DNS zone. The idea
>>would be "http://uninum.org" being used along RFC 6116 and 6117, the DNS
>>being open to every kind of names and numbers.
>>The main thing is to compile the RFCs from a Independent User (IUser)
>>point of view in order to clearly determine what is already reserved by
>>the IETF/IANA and what is available to users. In the DNS and addressing
>>areas. What is in place is to simplify the US VGN BUG oriented (Being
>>Unilaterally Global) management. Since 1977 this was a last resort
>>solution for stability. The removal of the NTIA "umbrella" makes the
>>situation uncertain. This is why we need precautionary fail-secure
>>contingency plans for the governance of our own VGNs. If the NTIA's
>>project comes to an happy non-e-colonization end, this would be perfect.
>>But this is not what appears to be under preparation, therefore this is
>>why we need to prepare ourselves.
>>alliance spoke person
>>discuss mailing list
>>discuss at 1net.org
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org

More information about the discuss mailing list