[discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is globalized? (:-)
jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Mar 13 19:32:29 UTC 2014
At 17:24 13/03/2014, George Sadowsky wrote:
>How to represent "the rest of us" who number in the billions has
>been the subject of some dispute in the history of ICANN. While IMO
>this issue has not yet been finally resolved, the ALAC effort is
>sufficiently developed that it deserves attention, respect and
>support from all of "the rest of us."
As you know I was part in that "history", and I keep "atlarge.org" at
the disposal of the "rest of us" once the relation with ICANN and
other VGNICs will have clarified.
For the time being, I have considered your introduction of the
IS-Journal paper. This is at last a serious attempt to discuss the
reality of the issue. If you engage in that kind of reflection, then
it is possible to discuss what really counts: how to best
institutionally help the couple man/machine in a global and
universal, i.e. architectonic context, without being influenced by
the constraints of the existing technical, institutional, and
political architectures too early (i.e. having the possibility to
explore the new paradigm before being bogged down in our former
paradigm mental habits). This is not an easy task as this makes the
difference between the possible and utopia.
Your first ICANN centered attempt was inadequate, or at least
premature, as ICANN is not architectonically mandatory. This time, I
adhere to your second approach.
The first need is certainly to be in mental harmony with the
complexity of the model. This calls for an understanding of
complexity, something that is easier for us as we have the internet
model itself. RFC 3934 explains to us that in very large systems (the
internet is a very large system, and its governance is an even larger
system) one must obey the principle of simplicity. KISS, keep it
· This is because cybernetics is simple: just a monolectic
action and reaction (there is the internal enaction but we will leave
it aside for the time being).
· Logic is the dialectic chaining cybernetics couples (thesis
anti-thesis) into conclusions (synthesis).
· However, our new world attains full normal life freedom. It
is agoric, a normal crowd, a fractally deterministically (philia
oriented/entangled) polylectic chaos.
This is a cybernetic entanglement with two main layers:
· spirit (continuities) : the determinist content of data,
· and body (discontinuities) : the apparent continuity of
· with their intellectual interface that we "cerebrically"
(what is related to natural/artificial brains) extend by prosthetic
facilitating interconnected thinking.
This leads us to an anthropobotic society where bots change the
Aristotelian definition of policy (the art of commanding freemen)
into the art of commanding freemen extended (not augmented) by
You will note that my model:
· opposes Doug Engelbart "Augment" vision and therefore his
followers. Man is not changing, but his artificially aided reach is
extending, so is his assisted discrimination power and analytical ability.
· encompasses the one you quote, and much more, what addresses
the complaint of Milton.
Layered models are local thinking helpers for trying to avoid double
constraints but actually there are only two "mathematical" poles:
continuity and discontinuity, and the increasingly complex and
diversified meshing that gathers them, where complexity is the
entangled simplification of simplicity from continuity to
discontinuity through coherence and decoherence.
Then, as you say, the proposed model has huge lacks (governments,
users, Vint Cerf's initial plan, people, cultures, languages, etc.)
but this is just a model for a given thinking that attempts to
capitalize on the existing world. As you say, "the authors propose a
layering of issues in Internet governance according to their relative
position between strictly technical and strictly social."
I might venture in associating social to a continuous philia we might
hope and technical to an harmonization of discontinuities.
The problem we really face is that we meet a singularity, i.e. a
change in the human history attractor making it a single point that
can make smooth (as an inflexion) or not (leading to a criticality).
This is the time where humanity has already or will switch from an
anthropologic to an anthropobologic nature:
· today, removing bots would be the worst genocide ever;
· after the singularity it would be humanity's collective
suicide (actually we probably have passed the singularity's inflexion
point, the point on the old attractor after which it cannot be avoided).
In that new context, one cannot split things as being strictly
technical and social any more. When we need machines to survive,
machines become a Human Right by themselves. In that new paradigm,
under that new attractor, content stands for structured ideas that a
machine can present and possibly utilize.
We replicate the preceding singularity: when Socrates/Plato opposed
and Aristotle synthesized.
Socrates did not want to use scripting (the new technology of the
time) because he said it would kill thinking. Thinking had to live.
Plato responded that he was not fixing thinking but rather ideas,
snapshots of thinking. This is the passive content of datagrams.
Aristotle commented that, once scripted, ideas would live their own
lives. This is what I call intelligram, i.e. the datagram (or
actually a cortege of them) that was sent to be processed, in a
certain way to produce an intended/(multi)agreed/expected result.
I know this first hand. Spreading active content use globally was my
job the internet has counter-strategically delayed for thirty years.
I am living with this "IG" issue and its con and pros for a long:
actually ten years before. Wiener understood the reason why when he
said that "Man has created the machine to his image". This is because
one can then add, "and to his convenience". However, it is still to
the convenience of some: we have to extend it to the convenience of
every and each one.
Actually, we have a simple metaphor to help us: in an anthropobotic
society, we can identify a dichotomy in the machine part which is
equivalent to the human social/technical split. From a
hardware/software machine point of view, there is something that is
new for them as for us: the human brainware, how we collectively use
This helps us identify that the problem is first in the way that we
apprehend the machines and, therefore, also in the way the machines
cooperate with us.
You said "Using the working definition of Internet governance adopted
by the WGIG in 2005: Internet governance is the development and
application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in
their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules,
decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution
and use of the Internet. How might the discussions on 1net be
enlarged in a productive manner to address some of the issue areas
included in the above definition, other than the ones that have
received extensive discussion to date? Define this as problem no. 2,
if you like, but its really a meta-problem. The real problems are
the ones listed above."
The real problem is that we solve the problems that we know and that
they have undergone extensive discussions. The difficulty is that
these problems result from meta-problems that we have not identified,
either because they are new or that their very novelty is the very
reasons why the current solutions are to be reviewed. This is why I
am not at all interested in ICANN specifics, and I find the WSIS 10
year old definition of the Internet Governance as the first thing to
review. The point is not to change it but to deepen it. At that time
they considered a new technology global system, not a new humanity phase.
I feel that the first thing we have to accept is that the internet is
an epiphenomenon; the real phenomenon is the digital renormalization,
i.e. the paradigmatic switch from Euclid to Jacquard allowing us to
skip Leibnitz's calculus infinitesimal approximations and accept his
quantum (binary) thinking.
This started with Poincaré's non-demonstration of the "n-body"
problem, continued with Plank and Gödel, the cosmologic and
relativity principle of Einstein, Louis Pouzin's catenet, Vint Cerf's
IEN 48 first motivation until the business interest in the status quo
denounced by RFC 3869 came to block the nearly ready deployment of
the second motivation. I think this was unlocked through the viral
launch of the VGN concept (which is simply the application of the
cosmological principle to the digisphere, i.e. the vision and use of
the discontinuities of the universe's continuity from everyone's perspective).
Then, we can consider the 1983-2003 experience, the 2004-2014 status
quo trying to gain a business advantage from all of what has been
accumulated since the early 1960s and decide to pursue this status
quo effort (until the singularity blows it up), or unleash the
technology while it still can smoothly resume its nominal progression
as per Vint's 1978 project. This is what I expect as a necessity for
the VGN trend, where each VGN demand a transparent neutrality for its
own technology, as required by its supported relational space and
their unlimited diversity of their multitudinal stakeholdership (that
is not globality as commonly discussed in the NY press).
All of this results from what I therefore understand as a
multitudinal-stakeholdership or polycracy. Democracy is a close
garden possibility (every member will vote on a common decision along
a common law and organization), while polycracy is a "no king, no
president, no vote, only running code and living mode" open garden
system. Everyone can discuss (every process can be considered), and
make their mind up and decide on their own, making the common
decision dynamically emerge.
>Bertrand de la Chapelle has been discussing the international
>dimension of these issues in his cross-boundary jurisdiction
>project, and he is raising really important issues and providing
>insights into the nature of this problem. However, as much if not
>more attention needs to be paid to these issues at the national
>level. Where are national governments being faced with these issues
>as a part of their responsibilities. How can other sectors assist
>in making this happen? Which other actors play a part in improving
>things, and is this happening. How can 1net comment meaningfully on
Could you please provide me with Bertrand's document(s) URL? Let us
remember that Westphalian concepts are inherited in a broad part from
Grotius' propositions for the High Sea Right. I am sure that, what I
expect to be the Relations-States, related concepts will widely
depend on the Right of the Digisphere that we will uncover. This is
why I am protesting against the inability to access the Tallinn
Manual for free. International law has begun with the laws of war and
peace of God.
What we observe is that sovereignty is horizontally extended and
vertically diluted and, therefore, entangled among different
power/capability layers of global, national, local, and personal
reach. In addition, it seems illusory to discuss governance without
having strategic and precautionary doctrines and a strong command of
architectonic subsidiarity. All of these things are here, not
formally assembled, but here. There are strong globalization
interests and momentum
Yet I think it is more complex. Look at Putin proposing a Russian
passport to all the Russian people in former USSR countries.
I do not know if they are adequate for the situation but, as IUCG, I
want to first see the real "Internet 2nd motivation" (or "inter+") in
VGN common open living mode (and not only in
institutionally/commercially driven mode) before any theorizing, i.e.
proceeding to a commented observation.
One of the opportunities for testing it in a real operation is for
the Digital Name Services Association that organizes to take care of
the cartography of the different class-roots as per the VGNICs'
requirements. I understand that one of them is a FLOSS request for
ONS "peer roots" in order to better comply with the various national laws.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss