[discuss] from confusion to clarification

[willi uebelherr]

Am 29/01/2015 um 11:04 a.m. schrieb Eduardo Villanueva:
"For what I understand of your argument, you believe that “internet 
governance” is irrelevant because there is only need for a number 
(perhaps a limited number) of technical decisions to guarantee that the 
Internet continues to work as such. While I think there’s a lot more 
there to discuss than just the technical issues of the interconnection 
of networks as they stand today, may I ask you how do you think the 
institutional arrangements necessary to reach the technical solutions 
should be? Just maintain the IETF? Or something different?

This particular issue is at the center of many debates about Internet 
governance, but i gather you may think that there is a better, simpler 
solution that will resolve the issue without all the hoopla around the 
IGF, NMI, ISF and everything else."


Dear Eduardo,

i was very happy to read a answer from Peru. We need here in Latin 
America the open discussion about the structure of the Internet, what we 
need and what we want. Then we can part of the big international discussion.

IGF, NM (NMI is different), ISF are answers to a real situation. The 
most people in our world don't like this centralisation and monopolizing 
of the technical bases. And, of course, all this institutions, was we 
have to manage the "Internet" are a result of this technical 
definitions. And they reproduce and defend this structures.

For me, in the IGF, NM, ISF, ISOC and many other we can find a process 
of self-organizing. But alway we have to be clear about, what we need, 
before we can go to a new destination.

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter initiate this handbook as a summary for all the 
different positions and perspectives in this different groups. i like 
this idea very much. And i hope, that this text collection can really 
bring out the essential elements of the various groups expressed.

The unity in diversity. This is our process. the unity with respect to a 
free global communication system for all people of our planet. The 
diversity in the ideas and suggestions for practical implementation.

The technology is always the base to realize the transportsystem for 
digital data. And if this technology is a instrument for centralized and 
monopolized groups, then we are always slaves. Then never we can say, "a 
InterNet is possible".

In the IETF we have the RFC's (request for comment". This is a very 
important instrument for us to distribute and discuss our technical 
principles, based on our philosophical principles. But this comes from 
Jonathan Postel and we know, how strong he was attacked and blocked in 
his work.

"Occupy the Internet". Yes, with all its consequences. Never we can say: 
"Papa, i need the technical components" like "Mama, i am hungry". No, we 
have to end our passivity, our wait on the activity of others. We have 
to do it yourself.

I will translate this answer to spanish and then send to my friends in 
Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador and to you.

many greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia


Am 29/01/2015 um 11:04 a.m. schrieb Eduardo Villanueva:
> Hi Willi
> For what I understand of your argument, you believe that “internet governance” is irrelevant because there is only need for a number (perhaps a limited number) of technical decisions to guarantee that the Internet continues to work as such. While I think there’s a lot more there to discuss than just the technical issues of the interconnection of networks as they stand today, may I ask you how do you think the institutional arrangements necessary to reach the technical solutions should be? Just maintain the IETF? Or something different?
> This particular issue is at the center of many debates about Internet governance, but i gather you may think that there is a better, simpler solution that will resolve the issue without all the hoopla around the IGF, NMI, ISF and everything else.
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Eduardo Villanueva-Mansilla
> Associate Professor, Dept. Communications
> Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
> evillan at pucp.pe
> www.eduardovillanueva.com
>
>
>
>> El 29/1/2015, a las 9:48, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> escribió:
>>
>> Dear Nathalie.
>>
>> Am 28/01/2015 um 09:26 p.m. schrieb Nathalie Coupet:
>>> Could you explain what kind of decentralized architecture would be necessary to eliminate the retention of virtual address spaces?
>>
>> In general, addresses are geografical position. Then the transport is very easy. If you destroy this principle, then you need administration to create the necessary information about the geografical location from you virtual address.
>>
>> For me, the "decentralized architecture" is the reality of distributed local communities, where we live. The reality self is the "architecture of decentralization".
>>
>> The "Internet Governance" is a useless and cheap theater. For that, they need this virtualisation of addresses.
>>
>>> What process would need to be in place to assign address space according to the geographical position in the network?
>>
>> We have to create a open discussion about a useful world coordinate system. Our WC84, what we mostly use, is not really optimal. The distances between 2 degrees is on the pol 0 and on the equator max. We use triangles.
>>
>> Also we have to discuss our transform algorithm from WC (world coordinate) to 64 bit global IP-address and back. The local 64 bit IP-address is independent of that. The people decide the address mechanism.
>>
>> And we have to discuss our decentralized DNS-System. The roots are always the local networks. You can ask this roots and save for later. Or forget and ask later the same. But because all people need it, we organize it as a common task in the locality.
>>
>>> Thank you. Nathalie
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> Thank you, Willi
>> Sent from my mail client Thunderbird portable with PortableApps
>>