[discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works
willi.uebelherr at gmail.com
Sun May 18 19:51:39 UTC 2014
normally the people understand if i speak from "extremal poles". We
know, the reality lies between. Sometimes also we have both in one
The abstraction give us the view of the root forces. In this relation it
means that people work for the communication system for her material
existence or to create a free and open system. And we know, for some
people it can "overlap". But this are only a very small group. The most
people in our world are waiting to use and hoping for a better reality.
On this list there are many people with a "overlaping" situation. And
following of that they are conditioned for "Internet Governance". It is
her world. And they don't know the reality for the most people in our world.
This gives me the intention to seperate the communication system from
the professional environment. We need a clear and strong base, then we
don't need any "Internet Governance". It is a self-determined system. To
define the IP header structure it is very simple. Also to determine a
We can say, the people in this organisation fill a whole. And we know,
this whole was not a natural result. And, maybe it is true, that many
people in this organisations don't like the situation today. But in many
answers you can see a big blockade against the easiest way. They need
complication. Only then they are important.
Albert Einstein give us the orientation: "the genius is always easy"
("das Geniale ist immer einfach"). If we think about, what we need for a
packet transportation, we immediatly find a simple way to do that. But
this we can only do if we are free to do it. If we can think about an
easy way and have no self-interest to stabilze the complications.
The theoretical base for data transport is not a difficult task. All
people can work on that if they have the environment and the free access
to the free knowledge.
I am not shure now that we can discuss here on this list the ways what
we can go to our destination: the free communication system for all
people on the world, if they want it. Because this ways we find only if
we have the same destination.
We see in the answers from JFC(FSP4Net) and Nathalie and few others that
they think about and try to find a way to do it. And we have many
passive readers. I hope, in this group there are also many people with
the interest for a good and free communication system.
I was very shocked about the discussion "African take on Net
Neutrality". The neutral transport system is a very important theme. And
the content of this term is very clear. Only in a model like our
proposal we can realize it. But for that we have to discuss what we can
do to help the people in Africa to selforganize her network for data
If we bring the server structure to the local networks then immediatly
the big server instances lost her base. This is, what i want, of course.
But this is not my destination. The destination is the possibility for
self-organisation of the communication network.
This means, that our global network is based on the local activities.
The full network is only working if the people local organize it. The
technical questions are never the problems. I know it from Germany and
now from Latin America. It is a strictly blocking of the local self
organisation and self developement.
many greetings, willi
Am 05/05/2014 9:57, schrieb Shatan, Gregory S.:
> It is good that you identify this as "philosophical," since it is not an expression of fact.
> In particular, the concept that all parties are at one of two "extremal poles" is both incorrect and dangerous. It leads to all sorts of flaws in reasoning and analysis, since by doing so, one fails to distinguish the differences between the positions of various parties, as well as the common ground that various parties can find.
> Assuming for the moment that these are valid "poles," I would instead suggest that parties are arrayed along a spectrum between these two poles, with a mixture of "self-interest" and "public interest" (assuming that is consistent with your concept of "free communication").
> I think it is also flawed to align those who "use the communication requirements in order to realize [their] own interests" with "those for which the current structures and organizations are important". There may be overlap between these two "sets," but they are not by any means the same. Many who support the "current structures and organizations" do not do so out of self-interest, but because they believe these are valid mechanisms to achieve the public interest. (I'll note that most who support the current structures and organizations do not do so uncritically -- "support" does not equal "worship.") Conversely, many self-interested parties are not particularly fond of the current structures and organizations. They may work for some but not for others.
> One of the problems with "philosophical" discussions is that they tend to be abstracted and avoid concrete terms and identifications. In other words, it can be hard to identify what someone is saying or where they are coming from. Cutting through the "we" and the "those" it is my impression that your philosophy is "anti-corporate" and/or "anti-private sector" and/or "anti-capitalist." I'm not making a judgment, just an observation.
> Understanding this as your point of origin, your following statement is consistent with this orientation:
> "We are inevitably confronted with the private appropriation of human knowledge. This is not a problem for me, because for me knowledge is always world heritage. This eliminates all the justifications for legal systems to patents and licenses. This is because basically our individual knowledge rests on the knowledge of our ancestors and contemporaries."
> It is good to know that you have rejected every legal system in the world. This may be splendid philosophically, but it renders anything you propose impossible as a practical matter. Knowledge is not something that merely exists, it is created. Therefore, to claim that it is "appropriated" is a loaded statement. The balance between rewarding those who create and advance knowledge and allowing for "freedom of knowledge" underpins all legal systems relating to intellectual property (and more). There is certainly room for debate on this balance (and there is a mountain of debate out there), but taking the "extremal pole" that all knowledge is free is not going to advance that debate or have any practical result.
> Finally, I would note that the very idea that all "actors" are at one of two "extremal poles" is inconsistent with the very idea of the consensus-driven multistakeholder process. If all stakeholders clung to one or another "extremal pole" stakeholders could never develop consensus. In a well-designed multistakeholder process, the consensus mechanism forces parties to let go of their "pole positions" to try and create a position that is not at any pole. A philosophy that puts all actors at two poles has no method to resolve conflict other than power. And this is certainly a result to be avoided.
> Greg Shatan
Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de avast! Antivirus está activa.
More information about the discuss