[discuss] Why?

[willi uebelherr]

Dear David,

i respect your personal opinion. Your answer is not a result of general 
observation, because you can speak only for your self.

For me, this text from JFC is a real special text. JFC have a deep 
insight in the basic architecture of the internet. And also in the 
theatrical superstructure, what we give the name "Internet Governance".

many greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Why?
Datum: Wed, 20 May 2015 17:56:24 +0200
Von: David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>
Kopie (CC): BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>

Dear JFC,

As a general observation, your enthusiasm for wordplay, neologisms and 
new inventive acronyms  (MULTICANN, BUG, MYCANN-Plugs-in, is sometimes 
witty, sometimes entertaining, sometimes clever, and usually confusing 
and obuscatory and not helpful to allowing others to understand your 
argument.

Regards, David



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Why?
Datum: Wed, 20 May 2015 01:02:59 +0200
Von: JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang 
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, parminder 
<parminder at itforchange.net>, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>
Kopie (CC): BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, 
Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>

Dear Wolfgang,

Your question is pertinent. My response will be simple: the Civil 
Society that we have is inadequate because in the global network power 
game it has no power. You are right, it had some influence. This was 
when the private sector was learning how to adapt and use the liberal 
activists to better reach the conservative consumers. This period is 
over: CS people travel and stay at hotels at the private sector’s 
expenses and/or as part of some national delegations. The ICANN Internet 
has lost its disruptive interest. It has become a business road.

The activist power was in the technology and innovation. Nothing has 
basically changed since 1983.1.1. IETF was created in 1986 by the USG to 
make sure that everything would be and would stay NSA-compatible. (I was 
made to close my innovation shop - and its RFC 923 16 million IP 
addresses :-) at that date by McDD). And ever since, everyone, including 
Governments, Militaries, Businesses, Merchants, etc. have been happy 
with this. In 1998, after Jon Postel started toying with the US root, 
they created the unique root 13 server legend (proving that he could not 
have technically done what he had :-)). And every digitally illiterate 
activist was happy with it.

Then, progressively, China split from the ICANN's joke, with a local 
multiroot system. South Korea and China toyed with Aliases. This raised 
concerns among the private sector enough to consider an upgrade of the 
StatUS-quo strategy. The I*Core was revamped. At-large was framed in an 
obedient CS support organization. Industries reviewed their stands 
(Unicode, IEEE, W3C) with the ISOC help (and a State Department 
contractor). The update was ready in Aug 2012 before Dubai: it survived 
becoming a minority position vs. the Governments. Snowden helped a lot 
in delaying them (the US NSA bashing was a good point against every 
national NSA). In this multilateral vs multistakeholderism 
confrontation, there is a lot that the CS does not even understand 
anymore in the mentally engineered  “technopolitically correct” context, 
and is also powerless to impose omnistakeholderism. Omniconsumerism has 
taken the lead, RosettaNet and the WEF are the Internet future. The NTIA 
has changed the WSIS State/Civil Society/Private Sector/Internationa 
organization enhanced cooperation multstakeholderism, into a business 
multitakeholderism where States are accepted on an equal footing basis 
with ICANN, GAFAMs, USCC, etc.

My reading is simple. In our area, all of these are patches for a BUG. 
That BUG is the ICANN design to Be Unilaterally Global. As long as the 
NTIA is its sponsor, the BUG is a feature. Unfortunately, the CS 
activists are not any better than the IAB as architects because they 
have not worked enough on the reality's root. Not the root of the DNS, 
but rather the root of our changing (technological singularity) society, 
i.e. at the architectonical layer; what is changing man in changing the 
digital environment. This only means that CS activists are depressed. 
And they do not know how to revive themselves, i.e. to get some power back.

Your new CS generation is simple to imagine. It will resume the pre-1985 
non-NSA-constrained visionary path. Relational space oriented, 
Multitechnology, multioverlay physical and virtual architecture, OSI 
layer six presentation layer for security, extended intelligent 
services, multilingualism, etc. The second objective of “The catenet 
model for internetworking” of Vint Cerf's (IEN 48).

The practical question now is how many CS activists will join in asking 
the IAB/IETF to provide guidance on full TCP/IP internet technology use, 
in a MULTICANN context, and support the emergence of BUG fixes, at 
individual user level through the proliferation of "MYCANN-Plugs-in". 
Then, you will see a real pre-revolutionary debate. Please remember that 
in the IoT context every CPU is a weapon: we have not yet started 
considering the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_smart_grid_protocol 
OSGP issue. Should CS be technically aware ...

The real CS need as regards the global digital illiteracy is to increase 
literacy. The real task of CS people is to teach people what the 
internet is. A single authoritative internet book, rather than 8,000 
RFCs. There are the so-called Names, Numbers, and Protocols Communities. 
The really missing one is the Unique Master Documentation Community. 
Then you will have a debate (1) about what the Internet technology can 
do (2) how to use it (3) how to extend, improve, and replace it 
depending on what you want to achieve and how.

Discussing goals that you do not know how to achieve is rather boring. 
The CS is bored.

Cheers!
jfc



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: [governance] Why?
Datum: Tue, 19 May 2015 16:01:12 +0200
Von: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, parminder 
<parminder at itforchange.net>, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>
Kopie (CC): BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, 
Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>

Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this 
list is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" 
and "I am right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, 
which once played an important role in policy development in the WSIS 
process, is unable to look forward where the real challenges are with 
the forthcoming WSIS 10+ processes and concentrate on substance and how 
to reach rough consensus? Why people do not respect anymore what Jon 
Postel has told us a quarter of a century ago in his robustness 
princple: "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you 
accept". Why they do not remember the language of the CS WSIS Geneva 
Declaration from 2003?

The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have 
overtaken the discussion.

My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new 
generation of younger civil society people who feel more committed to 
the substance of real civil society activities and do not waste the 
limited resources and energies for infighting. And do not forget: The 
WGIG proposal for a multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance 
(2005) was a compromise between "governmental leadership" (China) and 
private sector leadership (USA)and it opened the door for civil society 
to become an inclusive part of the process. This was a boig achievement 
of that time and an opportunity. It is now up to the next generation of 
civil society activists to build on this oppportunity. It would be a big 
shame if this would be destroyed.

Wolfgang