[discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Sun Mar 23 11:47:44 UTC 2014

At 08:55 23/03/2014, Avri Doria wrote:
>What is wonderful is how few governments opportunistically accept 
>their viewpoint, though it might seem to serve governments to adopt 
>this part of civil society and make them the heroes.  It is good to 
>see so many governments accept that it is in the public good to work 
>with all stakeholder

In democracy the governements are the people elected, chosen, 
motivated, etc.. by the people. On this list the governance is by a 
few people either necessarily limited by their ignorances when they 
engage in acts of speech, or by the experience from running code and 
living mode when they engage in practical acts.

What is surprising is when people of speech want to modify the 
reality and forbide people of acts to dicuss and reports their acts. 
All they can do is to modify their personal virtuality and engage 
into irreality, unless they convince the people of act that their 
speeches are sound so they enact their speeches.

The internet is a time proven ballanced 
technical-legal-societal-political covenant that therefore depends on 
its architectonical parameters. The ballance is affected by the loss 
of trust in its technical, and in its legal, and in its societal, and 
its political aspects in such a way that its architectonical 
parameters are shaked.

 From what we observe, there are two possible attitudes:

1. to convince oneself that one can keep the same architectonical 
parameters and try to tune "topics".
2. to get real and start by examining the validity of the current 
architectonical "principles". Then to act in consequence - now during 
the examination and further on to save time and trouble.

Most of those who continue to contribute to this list share the first 
attitude. The minority tries to use them as an educated sample of the 
uninformed crowd, to better understand (1) the situation we have to 
address and (2) the motivations, strategy, strengths and weaknesses 
of the influential forces at play.

Democracy is the rule of the people of speech, while polycracy 
engineers emergences from affected people's concerted acts. In 
reading Mawaki's statement I realized that actually many saw MSism 
not as a multitude's agora but as a speech coordination among 
democratic speech communities of interest, of different economical, 
political, technical, etc. weight, what corresponds to RFC 6852's 
'global communities' who's economic interest is to guide technology, 
i.e. communities that vote by their purchases.

I am sorry, Folks, this is not the world I am interested to live in.

Now, the question is, can our worlds cohexist through a commonly 
agreed IG, or do you want to reduce our world to yours?
In that case you would break the 
political/technical/economical/industrial/societal status-quo. You 
industrially consolidating your restrained technology, 
us  multitudinally (hence progresssively as the exponential addition 
of small advances) unleashing it.

Otherwise, you need first to cohexist with us, accept our 
differences, and discuss the bridges. On our side we have no problem 
with you: you only are one case among all those we accept and 
encourage. Our only problem is your tendancy to radical and 
international monopoly.

You can legitimately say: how many of you? Why would we bother?

Your reason why is very simple and you know it very well: this is the 
very reason of this list of yours, of this RFC 6852 of yours, of this 
Montevideo statement of yours, of this Sao Paulo meeting of yours, 
etc. The initial/exceptional cohesion enforced by ARPA/NTIA is going 
to be replaced by the normal course of the US, and progressively 
international and national, and regular laws and courts. Your 
architectonic parameter choices do fragment the internet and you hope 
patching it in accusing the impact of your own speech decisions.

One way or another, you will not be able to avoid this issue and the 
INTERNIC/VGNICs debate. Simply because they are built-in the RFCs and 
Judges will refer to them as the contract between affected parties.


More information about the discuss mailing list