<html>
<body>
At 11:18 01/02/2014, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Imagine countries and
territories fighting for over Country Code top level domains. Imagine for
a moment, if Brazil and Brunei were to fight over something like .br
.This is merely a hypothetical situation as we know Brazil is assigned
.br</blockquote><br>
This is the ICANN created case between Bulgaria and Brazil:
<a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/string_similarity_case_of_the_bulgarian_cyrillic_idn_vs_brazil_cctld/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.circleid.com/posts/string_similarity_case_of_the_bulgarian_cyrillic_idn_vs_brazil_cctld/<br>
<br>
</a><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">This adds a level of
politicization if countries and territories would start fighting over
names placing the burden of assignment an administrative nightmare. To
prioritize a country over another becomes political. It is complex
because countries and territories go through self determination, annexes
which result in names constantly in flux. New countries are borne, such
as South Sudan or former colonies become countries such as New Hebrides
(former condominium) to Vanuatu. You can see the change history here:
<a href="http://www.statoids.com/w3166his.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www.statoids.com/w3166his.html</a><br><br>
The ISO 3166 takes away that layer of politicization from IANA. As the
burden to select which country gets which country code is determined by
the ISO, see:
<a href="http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes" eudora="autourl">
http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes</a><br><br>
Whilst there will always be conflicts over country codes, the political
risk is mitigated and minimised.</blockquote><br><br>
Salanieta, <br><br>
This decision occurred in 1978 and it was for this very reason that there
is ".uk" and not ".gb" as per ISO 3166. The idea was
that each technology vendor could introduce its own naming plan (i.e. TLD
set) with a resulting cacophony for the users. <br><br>
This idea also prevailed in the addressing plan. This was X.121 and by
end of 1985 the entire world was mapped with a consistent name and number
system, except the internet (which was the sole State owned connected
private net) where conversion between names and numbers was at the
gateway: this conversion was symbolized by the "dot" at the end
of the names. (*) <br><br>
This also introduced the problem that we face: both sides understood
their face of the "." quite differently. <br><br>
- on the International/global side, it symbolized one of the equal-footed
gateways to one of the many national and corporate connected systems
(<a href="http://intlnet.org/INTLHIST.HTM">
http://intlnet.org/INTLHIST.HTM</a>) of the world's global system.<br>
- on the Internet it was the symbol of their global namespace that their
technology was first intended to support (IEN 48). <br><br>
This introduced a political split between two different logics, and not
the technical union of two different naming and numbering syntaxes as was
intended. This is because Tymnet was then acting as the MS international
registry: <br>
- on behalf of the FCC for all the US operators for the naming and as per
OSI global standards for the addressing.<br>
- and tacitly for the rest of the world as having provided the technology
of 100% of the initial international liaisons.<br><br>
At that time, the US was very active at the CCITT (ANSI, BBN) pushing for
the CCITT (ITU) OSI model in order to stabilize an equal-footed MS
approach among communications leaders (States, Manufacturers,
TransNational Corporations). Users were represented by the fact that
Tymnet was a user support oriented company and that the actual registry
was maintained by the Intlnet non-profit. This was roughly the situation
that the I*coalition is trying to restore.<br><br>
The technical analysis of what spoiled it for merchant/political motives
(**) and why political moves where influential (***) tells us what we
have to do. <br><br>
<br>
Basically, I see two key lessons there for us:<br><br>
1. we did not go deep enough in the e-empowerment anchoring. France,
which was the logical leader, went deep enough with the Telematics, but
the Minitel was a terminal, not a client and certainly not a peer. WSIS
gave us the clue: the information society MUST be people centered IF it
was going to work.<br><br>
2. cyclades and internet were architectural proofs of Pouzin's catenet
concepts. This concept was (as IEN 48 shows it) twofold: global
internetting and multitechnology oriented. Cyclades was closed in 1978
when Tymnet started deploying the multitechnology support on a global
basis. The former Cyclades team pursued its BBN/Telenet alliance in order
to finalize the catenet architecture as a mature networking standard that
eventually failed because it was overly telecommunication oriented, but
that Tymnet also deployed on a worldwide basis. This gives us the second
clue: multi-interuse support is required. The network proposition MUST be
trade/end-user oriented.<br><br>
OpenStand (****) has ended the internet global phase of the proof of
concept in acknowledging "the economics of global markets, fueled by
technological advancements" and not the sole IAB vision, "drive
global deployment of standards regardless of their formal status".
Snowden has enforced the idea by ending the trust people had in the idea
that the current internet system is not broken. The current internet is
not broken, it is uncompleted. We entered in the second phase of the
Internetting project, the phase of its second motivation which is to
internetwork technologies, trades, services, and people. The focus is no
longer on the hosts and ends because this part works and works well
enough. A good example of this transition towards an �intertech� and then
a subsequent �interuse� strata is the support of the internationalized
domain names. We are back to the need of a network ecosystem that is
equal footed on an MSism basis.<br><br>
This is why the solution to our debate is outside of it, but enlightened
by it. It consists in providing each person and utilization a full
command on their relational behavior in continuity with their command of
their decision process through their operating system, applications, and
databases. This means, atop of the OSI pile, a network oriented OS
continuation of Posix. For years, considering a Netix Posix continuation
could have been at odds with the network stability. For many reasons,
including the awareness embodied in this list, that is no longer the
case. This is why I will call for a NetixBarCamp this July at the RMLL
(<a href="https://2014.rmll.info/?lang=en">
https://2014.rmll.info/?lang=en</a>) to consider the status of the art
and a roadmap and the HomeRoot project example ("give back everyone
their root's data").<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
NB. An example: several countries (including most US States) have dropped
the handwriting priority at school in favor of keyboards. This means that
the practical scripting and orthotypography will be decided by the most
character encompassing mecalanguages. This means most probably the IDNA
Table will become the writing table of reference that everyone will
locally need for many purposes<br><br>
<br>
(*) I found some mails that were exchanged during the organization of
this gateway
<a href="http://intlnet.org/wiki/1984_Mail_exchange_about_TCP/IP_Tymnet_support_and_Gateways">
http://intlnet.org/wiki/1984_Mail_exchange_about_TCP/IP_Tymnet_support_and_Gateways</a>
. I would be very interested in finding more, as most of our issues today
root there.<br>
(**) Tymnet was acquired by McDonnell Douglas which (1) did not
understand the potential of cyberspace and (2) favored the Unix/Internet
US military-industrial complex technology and a network centered vision
instead of an equal footed MS one.<br>
(***) IMHO, these political motives explain much of our political debate,
which will lead to nowhere if we make it a priority. What we want is the
technical stability in a non-conflicting political context. The technical
aspects being the longer term one, as it is better to give them the
primary feasibility attention, to check their societal acceptability, and
then to consider their long-term political viability.<br>
(****) <b>"In this [modern] paradigm standards support
interoperability, foster global competition, are developed through an
open participatory process, and are voluntarily adopted globally. These
voluntary standards serve as building blocks for products and services
targeted at meeting the needs of the market and consumer, thereby driving
innovation. Innovation in turn contributes to the creation of new
markets and the growth and expansion of existing markets."</b> I
could endorse that if every relational space was considered without
having to be a global market, and if an ethical appeal process was
included in order to avoid self-ordering criticality phenomena.<br><br>
</body>
</html>