[discuss] What is to replace the NTIA?

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Wed Mar 19 00:34:41 UTC 2014


This evaluation of yours is interesting. However, it is incomplete. 
It posits that innovation dynamism will continue. This is correct.

However, it does not consider the singularity's impact on humanity 
itself. Let not be abused by what people do today. They did not do 10 
years ago, and they will not do 10 years from now. One cannot 
conceive a stable "IG" without considering that "I" will soon enough 
or already stands for "intercomprehension". Let me be candid, either 
Engelbart/Kurzweil are right and Google/NSA's people "augmented 
brain" will control and take care of everything for us; or they will 
not and we will extend our capacity to penetrate the complexity's 
intelligence and will need the appropriate tools and a lot of innovation.

Therefore, your images of the army, blue helmets, soviets, sheriffs, 
and stakeholder's brigades are not wrong, but they are to cope with a 
completely differently fragmented world, an old world. Kazimir 
(easier to spell than Zbigniew Kazimir Brzezinski) is right, but the 
status-quo dreamers (or intoxicators) are not: the internet is 
fragmented (the networks of the network). The catenet concept is to 
concatenate them, not to wipe their fragmentation.

Technologies (EIN 48), global communities (RFC 6852), multinational 
sovereignties (TNCs), cultures (multilinguistics), privacy (public 
and private secrecy), etc. are additional fragmentations that "myVGN" 
presentation layers (plural) six are to support in a consistent 
manner. Consistency does not oppose fragmentations (plural); on the 
contrary, it holds them together in the complexity's glue.

We face a techno-political issue, which means there are those who 
produce (techies), those who organize (politicians), and those who 
put them in competition (commerce) in order to extract the money we 
use to live. The technicians permitt their benefits the politicians 
will internally tax, and the soldiers will externally protect.
- For centuries, the simplicity of the world permitted this 
architectonics to be controlled by a single man (king).
- Then, its diversity called for structures (democracy).
- Now, its complexity demands systems (the polycracy that we are 

The king's political governance was human. The democratic political 
governance was in the texts. The polycracy's political governance 
calls for the entanglement of machines and their management by 
stakeholders. If there is a single VGN it is dictature with the 14 
stakeholders. If there are national, ragional, trade, etc. VGNs this 
can be democracy with elected/selected/designated VGN Master. If 
there is a multitude of VGNs on an equal footing this is polycracy.

We technicians have imagined and produced the machines of the 
stakeholders, but no one (except some soldiers, people, and 
merchants) has ever specified them until the WSIS, when "the people 
of the world" unanimously assigned themselves an esthetic: that our 
information machine entangled society must be people centric.
- This is not very clear yet on a daily basis (lack of an ethitechnic)
- and it is opposed by those who want it to be money or power centered;
but this is all what we have if machines are to set-us free and not 
use to command us.

In addition, we have been explained by Einstein, and we fully observe 
the interior/exterior/ulterior continuity of our "4D" space. It has 
already entered in some of our Constitutions through the precaution 
principle and duty (we have to live with the future as our responsibility).

Then, as if this was not enough, here comes the consequence of our 
machines: the datamass! The Big, Bad, Bog data complexity that adds 
their own three dimensions: the data, metadata (data on data), and 
syllodata (data between the linked data).

Frankly I do not know if this "7D" space that we are blatantly 
starting to discover is a true vision of reality, but it is most 
likely to be with us for a long time. This is because it explains 
quantum coherence/decoherence, fits information and 
communication/intellition, obeys cybernetics and logic/agorics, 
addresses Bohm's remaining questions about implicate and explicate 
provides good architectonic grounds to intercomprehension 
facilitation technologies, and is in adequation with our political 
process and institutions of our today's reality.

People have been manipulated, at least by the press, to focus on the 
wrong issues in the Snowdenia case. This has helped some interests. 
However, national, private, and individual surveillance agencies and 
agents only extend what is typically characteristic of humans (apart 
from orthogonality), i.e. survival and intellectual curiosity.

Actually, Snowden has shown that
- the Internet technology is vulnerable (even US citizens and 
corporations cannot be protected from friends),
- big intellition systems had to be developed (PRISM) in order to 
know better how to protect a 7 billion people world.

This illustrates that most of the information that our brain uses has 
never been communicated: we do not obtain them by the communication 
of "explicate" light speed data; but rather through "implicate" 
CPU/brain speed intellition: the information that makes sense from 
what we know or feel. And that last speed will be, like in our brain, 
the speed of quantum computers. These are speed and processes that 
ICANN cannot regulate; but many would like to control this for money, 
greed, or protection. Here the stakes.

Today, the NTIA's move is a smart move. Is it a good move for the US 
executive in giving it a higher leverage over the rest of the world? 
And in this way is it good for the world or a mistake? I do not know.

I, therefore, believe that our non-US citizen common precaution duty 
(constitutional for French citizens at least) is to make sure that we are:
*  neither engulfed in the consequences of a USG error, and ready to 
assist the US citizens whose community is necessary to the internet 
and the world.
*  nor be colonized by the US due to an insufficient understanding of 
a smash-action of them to which we could not react fast enough.

This is why:

1. I think the best is to work on the empowerment of everyone through 
an intelligent and independent control of their VGN and their VGNIC 
documentation, information, communication, and intellition tools.

2. I decompose the NTIA strategy along two aspects we can evaluate:

(1) transfer of the: IETF technology and IANA functions under the US 
common and copyright laws, so we have to avoid depending on the need 
of IETF technical derivatives and IANA dependent TLDs and DNs (i.e. VGNs)

(2) The uncoupling of the datamass from the communicated data, (with 
the US imposed political retardant of not accepting a Multi-State-led 
successor), so we need to empower everyone's self-sovereignty, in 
terms of information, communication, and intellition (i.e. smart VGNICs).

This being kept in mind; we can certainly be open-minded at the first 
degree level, watching our steps at the second degree level, and our 
soul at the third degree level. Actually, this is nothing different 
from what we are supposed to do since it was decided to make ARPANET 
(a US military experimental system) global, i.e. operational in our 
own place instead of our own technology.

- At least until everyone can deploy his/her chosen names, numbers 
and parameter across the global public good that has to be the 
internet and its Intersem – semiotic internet new layer.
- that day, the digisphere will have stabilized. Meaning that what we 
call the IGovernance will be banal common civil and business life 
(many businesses in every countries being trans-national); and that 
CyberCommands and NSAs will exist in every nation.

So, the real question is to know for us, nations and VGN masters to 
determine our interests, as probably the NTIA did: splitting cyber 
defense and power, from e-commerce, from social networking. IMHO, as 
VGN masters we are to define our multitude's member policy and help 
our country, region, trade, collectivity, family, etc. build their 
digital doctrine and decide their strategy. It would be quite 
surprising if a seven billion educated digitally meshed people could 
be satisfied with one single authroritative ICANN :-) However, a well 
designed multi-spoke hub could certainly help the transition, one 
additional spoke at a time, progressively leading to and gathering 
millions of VGN in a smooth transition.

The only thing, if we want to succeed, is that nothing is to be 
decided, only commonly agreed. This is why inititiatives are to be 
engaged, proven and accepted by the multitude first, but in a way he 
"leaders" will be able to accept.


At 10:13 18/03/2014, Michel Gauthier wrote:
>When considering all the inputs on this list one sees that:
>1. the Internet City currently work without a Mayor in being 
>ultimately policed by the NTIA.
>2. Internet City however grows larger and larger and has started 
>distrusting its sheriff.
>3. So the Sheriff talks about quitting. However, none is happy with 
>any of his assistants becoming sheriff or them forming a sheriff club.
>4. there are several options as crime, corruption and disorder are feared:
>     - army takes over, and ITU keeps things quite, with citizen squads
>     - blue helmets come in: a Police Department is formed under UN 
> jurisdiction
>     - popular auto-defense soviets start associating
>     - each quarter selects its own Sheriff and they cooperate.
>     - each stakeholder freely associates or not in brigades and 
> keep his/her gun home
>Any other kind of option? Which one do you prefer?
>In such a city and in each options, how common services work, 
>develop, get payed, coordinate.
>Zbigniew Brzezinski, explained very well at the end of the Grand 
>Chessboard: the XXth century US are like the XVII/XIXth centuries 
>UK: an island confronted to the Continent. In such a configuration 
>the peace of the entire world can only result from a cooperation of 
>every nation, coordinated by the island. Otherwise the island get 
>frustrated at being left aside and a conflict results.
>The NTIA bet is that the Internet has changed that situation: it has 
>made the entire world a single continent where all the interests are 
>entangled in the same complexity.
>The second NTIA bet is that this complexity is no wider than the 
>Internet, at least for the cyberspace, and therefore that a well 
>organized IG can be enough to address the issue.
>The third NTIA bet is that ICANN will be par, by its own charisma, 
>with the other institutions that take care of the human political, 
>economical, cultural, military, police, legal, religious, etc. spaces.
>I do not know for sure, but I feel that the NTIA's view of the world 
>is a static dream.
>- A dream,because reality is more complex (the digisphere is wider 
>than the cyberspace), but that this can be discussed.
>- Static because they seem to consider the internet development is 
>completed. As, if from now on, the internet development will only be 
>incremental and smooth enough to be seamlessly governed by the newly 
>established IG. This is like if they have transformed their 
>status-quo strategy in faith.
>I would be quite interested by comments.
>M G.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140319/9bd6922a/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list