[discuss] prince's fiat
jefsey at jefsey.com
Sat Mar 15 00:42:38 UTC 2014
I had today carefully considered Parminder's internet symptoms
description, while creating the DNSA (http://dnsa.eu - http://idnsa.org).
I fully agreed with it, except on the lesser *strategic* relative
importance given to a public policy oversight of the technical
standards and critical resources. NTIA's annoucement shows that
Parminder's evaluation is correct, and mine too. The decision of the
globalization (and therefore how the globality is to be) is not even
left to Sao Paulo's attendees. VGNs made it urgent: it is now an US
I, therefore, adjusted Parminders description of the Internet US
globalization as follows:
"The following key political and economic forces shape the Internet
today, in decreasing order of impact;
1. Extravagant profit motives of a few TNCs(transnational
corporations), almost all US based;
2. The laws and policies of the US, which are enforced, overtly
and subtly, on and through these global corporations; and,
3. The policy framework of some economic groups of developed
countries, like the OECD and CoE (for instance, OCED's principles for
Internet policy making).
There is a huge nexus between 1 and 2, which together constitute the
most powerful, in fact, quite overwhelming, force shaping the
Internet today. Meanwhile, the US is also largely able to get its way
with regard to the 3 above.
Internet technical standards and critical resource management bodies
also have a strong impact. These bodies have swung between doing
extremely good work to frequent capture by the above corporate
interests. Things are not going in the right directions with the
evolution of the Internet vis-a-vis canons of equity, social justice,
cultural and linguistic support, and personal empowerment."
However, this is only a description that permited us to discuss patch
propositions. Now, we need to cure the disease. We need a diagnosis
and a treatment.
My personal diagnosis is architectonic: the internet construction is
blocked at an architectural stage by a TNCs short term interest
status-quo strategy indirectly supported by the US Congress, which
incrementally favors a limited few, to the actual detriment of all.
This situation can only degrade in disruptive criticality. The
doctrine of this strategy is published technically through the RFC
6852, and politically through the Montevideo Statement: transfering
authority to the economic globality
My position is to correct that situation by pragmatically
transferring the completion of the internet fundamental construction
plan, from the objective alliance of those who block it to the
multitude of people, interests and processes, i.e. completion rather
than revolution, and a coopetition rather than a confrontation
between Multi-Shareholders and Multitudinal-Stakeholders.
"Multitudinal" means here that what is at stake is something inherent
to the internet concept that is far wider than "globality" as a
political achievement of "globalization"
We want the internet to constantly expand toward the multitude of
solutions that are able to address the multitude of needs of the
multitude of people. This is only possible through a deliberately
embodied innovation open capacity allowing each internet informed,
capable and intelligent (i.e. freely connected regardless of the
area) "IUser" to facilitate whatever he/she and others need.
I initially wrote this after-noon when preparing this memo that
possibly "the MS War Will Not Take Place"
It was because I hoped
"pigs in the poke" proposition would not prevail on our's to unleash
the multitude of VGNs by a multitude of VGN Masters documenting the
multitude of their InterPLUS capacities [*] (all their presentation
layer tools, services, formats, securities, etc.) through the
multitude of their VGNICs.
The NTIA seems to have evaluated that this would not anymore "allow
the private sector to take leadership for DNS management" and tries
to bypass the seven billion multitude's stakeholders by "prince's fiat".
[*] Apps are a non meshed type of such capabilities: more than 1
millions are already proposed. PLUS (presentation layer on the user
side) is the a la Steve Jobs response to the BUG (being unilaterally
global) post Snowdenia reinforced alliance. I hoped that ICANN, RIRs,
etc. could cleverly steer the political shallow waters: the NTIA has
now made sure they could not.
The question now is: which Gov will be the first to sponsor a
national VGNICs? Something we all wished to avoid outside of a
concerted decision. IMHO the NTIA made an unilateral political
mistake under technical misunderstanding and lobbying pressure. This
day is a bad day for the US and the world multitude.
Alea jacta est.
At 08:35 14/03/2014, parminder wrote:
>To understand how the
>from Just Net Coalition helps developing countries one needs to
>first understand 'what and who' shapes the evolution of the Internet
>today, as the Internet itself shapes our larger social structures,
>whereby the impact of this 'what and who' goes rather far and deep...
>To keep it brief, it is my understanding that the following key
>political and economic forces shape the Internet today, in the
>decreasing order of impact;
> * Extravagant profit motives of a few global corporation, almost
> all US based;
> * The laws and policies of the US, which are enforced, overtly
> and subtly, on these global corporation; and,
> * Policy framework of some clubs of rich countries, like the
> OECD and CoE (for instance, OCED's principles for Internet policy making).
>There is huge nexus between 1 and 2, which together constitute the
>most powerful, in fact, quite overwhelming, force shaping the
>Internet today. Meanwhile, the US is largely able to bull-dodge its
>way with regard to 3 above as well.
>Apart from the above, Internet technical standards and critical
>resource management bodies, also have a strong impact. These bodies
>have swung between doing extremely good work to frequent capture by
>the above corporate interests. In my view, their public policy
>oversight while important is relatively the lesser problem right now
>as compared to other issues listed above.
>Now, before we move forward to frame a response to the basic
>question you asked, 'how does the Just Net Coalition's (JNC)
>help developing countries', we need to form some level of agreement
>on two propositions.
> * The above is largely the right picture of the forces that are
> shaping the Internet today.
> * Things are not going in the right directions with the
> evolution of the Internet vis a vis canons of equity and social
> justice (for instance, 10 top websites had respectively 25, 50 and
> 75 percent of the total page views in the US in 2000, 2005 and
> 2010, and things have gone considerably worse since).
>If you strongly disagree with either of the above two propositions,
>JNC's proposal will make no sense to you. But if you do agree, there
>is a lot of ground for us to look at remedial political solutions.
>And I am ready to take up such a discussion, admitting that our
>proposed solution may only be one among many possible, and even
>perhaps not the best one. Our group, in its collective wisdom,
>thought that what is needed in the current context is an
>counter-magnetic field to the highly dominant forces today, that
>would be created by developing an anchor point inside the UN system
>which begins to undertake normative discussions on issues of
>Internet policies, and where needed comes up with higher norms and
>principles (as OECD has come up with), policy frameworks, and as and
>when needed, binding conventions and treaties.As happens with every
>sector in the UN, it will be much more about developing higher norms
>and principles, much fewer policy frameworks and rather infrequent
>conventions or treaties....
>Such a counter magnetic field alone can even begin balancing the
>lopsidedness of the current political and economic model around the
>Internet, and it goes to reason that such a balancing will serve the
>interests of developing countries, in fact of all marginalized
>groups everywhere in the world.I hope you agree.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss