[discuss] shifts in IANA/accountability discussion: your thoughts?
Michel S. Gauthier
mg at telepresse.com
Tue Jun 24 07:59:22 UTC 2014
The information jokey concept as explained before came by fun and
chance. It also came as part of a communication theory analysis
(there is an information theory, but no real communications theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_theory) while JFC Morfin
debugged what he calls 'intellition' (i.e. what makes sense out of
the communicated information).
One of the interesting things with information theory is that it is
centralized. You have a sender and multiple receivers. JFC oberved it
while identifying the sleeping, listening, soliloqual, monolog,
dialog, polylog and symbiosis communications states. In these seven
states one considered from zero to an unlimited number of receivers
and a single sender. This is not the only way the actual network
works, at least in his Tymnet originated model, our now Web 2.0
practice, and OPES (we shared into this but could not at that time
make understood the notion of parallel networks)
The debate about multiple senders to multiple receivers seemed partly
OK through mailing lists. So we had a mailing list initiated by JFC
on this topic. However we identified that mailing lists did not scale
seamlessly. You can have sub-lists but these sub-lists must have a
spokeperson (we had quite a lot of discussions at that time at the
ICANN DNSO and a special working group. There a method, initiated by
(and named after) Jefsey, was discussed of joint working was you
could assimilate to some sort of mail+wiki list (a maintained
position page). This was too complex for a list like the DNSO.
Another idea we had from the Jokey Smurf experience was a "multi-guy"
sender. Multi-generation was opposed to Multi-cast one of us was very
found of, and we identified that polylog was adequately scaling in
having multi-sender, multi-cast, multi-homing and multi-receiving
VGNs. Something quite more meshed and datagram oriented than Shanon's
link. This introduced many possibilities of distorsions (what Shanon
called "noise", we called it "rumour"). Rumour enthropy could
obviously not be computed and filtered as Shanon's noise. This is
when Jefsey came with the Tymnet/Tymshare concepts originated by Norm
and Ann Hardy of agoric programming
proposed the polylectic notion of agoric, as a polylectic
generalization of Aristotle's syllogistic dialectics (logic) and
Wiener"s monolectics (action/reaction) (cybernetics).
You bet that our "multi sender group" (M S G) kept discussing this!
One idea emerged from discussing the ICANN constant lies and the open
roots issues: to try to collectively reduce (mutual filtering) the
rumour. The idea came as the "telepresse" mailing list where everyone
could give his/her information on the rumours, I could sum up (as
Steve Farber does). However, this was a lot of non-necessary mails
and we had identified that mailing list principle did not scale. So
we embodied the "multi-sender-guy" in me, also due to my initials,
and it became the mg at telepresse.com jokey. We even embodied it on
wikipedia and we saw the rumour developping there, some telling that
I was Swiss others Canadians.
As explained we all shared the same old Eudora copy. We used
different tricks to make it work our shared way. The way we do it
today is not fully satisfactorily. So we thought about transfering to
Google through FSP4NET, but we were filtered on this list.
Except for JFC who is mainly interested in architectonics
(understading how the whole thing works) we are either interested in
brainware (how people individually/collectively use/govern a machine)
and software (how the machine can answer the human/network needs).
So, we all are interested in polycracy, the way the multitude may
self-govern itself and how it relates to democracies and autocracies
(the IETF is a good example). People like me are more interested in
the rumour's relational issues, governance, MSism pollution, etc.
Some are more interested in the technical/administrative aspects like
Jay Daley's attack was interesting as it helped us considering a few
points we did not considered much and reviving the whole thing (we
never went to 148 maximum, but we climbed upto 27 JEDI's).
1. we need a better technical fit between VGN and mailjokey
architectures to support inter-apps shared writting (mail, wiki,
registry maintenance, etc.). There are discussions as Jefsey thinks
that Json style intelligrams corteges should be the "information
quark" and others are more immediately pragmatic and would like to
weld together some existing pieces.
2. polydentity. My name was used due to my initials and my interest,
but this obvioulsy does not scale to other topics and projects. We
need to decide if Jokeys should always be a real persons or could be
totally virtual. Would it be OK to have an American Mike S. Galton?
Could we use "(vp)" after a name to indicate that this is a (virtual
person). How do we know it is not a Turing Test winer machine? This
is important as it decides of the legal status of a Multi-Stakeholder Group.
3. Polycracy/Democracy. Jay has raized the basic polycratic/MSism
issue. By being impolite and agressive he has built-up a campaign
against the polite rumour/disinformation filter of a group of
persons. The people I represent are democratically more important
than Jay alone. They only thought that they did not need to pollute
the system with many mails when they only needed a few mails from a
single querrying persona/spoke person.
4. innovation hysteresis. From a general point of view, the attitude
of Jay Daley and followers, shows that people focus on unusual
details rather than on big innovations. Understanding who wrote a few
words is more important to many good people than the concept they
convey. If we are a few academic, retired people, entrepreneurs,
professionals, etc. buzy people associated in a non structured
polycratic node, it is because:
- we think our experimentation is interesting and innovative
- based upon the most common and general embodiement (VGN) of the
digital individuality (digitality)
- that ordinary people intuitively accept evrywhere
- but technicians seem to have some difficulty to grasp.
This is interesting as it aslo means that the status-quo strategy may
result from a sysops mental status-quo.
M S G
At 23:39 23/06/2014, willi uebelherr wrote:
>Am 06/23/2014 09:17 a.m., schrieb Jay Daley:
>>And you and FSP4NET and Elisabeth Blanconil. That means you have
>>one real identity and four fake identities.
>Is that respectful? That you create a story about my identity? On
>this international list with different people from all of our world
>you act as a . speculator of identities.
>The task of this list and particuarly on this thread are the search
>for mechanism for a realy free and open communication system in our
>world. For that i subscribe to the list and participate in the
>discussions like many other people.
>And you? For what you are active on this list? For speculations on
>the identity from different people on this list? For excluding
>people with a different opinion? Is that your job and maybe you'll
>payed for it?
>This are speculations from me. Theoretical speculations. I don't
>like to go this way. Following of that it is the same speculation
>with me like what you do with Michel and Jefsey. I think so, but i don't know.
>I did not expect to find on this list such a swamp. Maybe, it is
>constructed to destroy an open discussion about the technical
>mechanism for an open and free worlwide communication system. I think so.
>The buisness interest for private occupation of the global
>communication system are activ. This group have to stabilize her
>dominance. And the best way to do it is the creation of unstability
>and confusion in the groups of public interests. And, of course,
>most time with personal attacks and slander.
>many greetings to all, willi
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss