[discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is globalized? (:-)

Jefsey 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."

Dear George,

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 
stupid simple.
·       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, 
metadata, syllodata.
·       and body (discontinuities)  :  the apparent continuity of 
physical quanta.
·       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 
interconnected bots.

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 
interconnected machines.

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 
>these issues?

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...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140313/191be453/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list