<html>
<body>
<br>
Salanieta,<br>
Sorry, this mail was sent unfinished and unreviewed by mistake. <br><br>
W3C is a member of OpenStand. ICANN joined in Montevideo where the IEEE
was not present. This created an unbalance:<br><br>
- everyone but ICANN agreed upon an economic vision of IG in order to
define the technology development paradigm. However, it did not define as
to who will be the ultimate decision taker for OpenStand (i.e. the whole
digital technology), what IAB/ISOC is for the network part of that
technology. This is the reason for my appeal, as users and Govs cannot be
bound by merchants' decisions.<br><br>
- everyone but the IEEE agreed upon a political approach to an IG revamp.
However, this attempt is not based upon a serious technical consideration
of the technological convergence needed to reduce the UNIX
"superuser" dogma (i.e. the IEEE machine "root" and
the ICANN network "root"). <br><br>
The difficulty was to make their concerns converge (through a kind of
multiple regression), and see if we could insert our IUser/CS concerns to
also converge, so as a "root" cause analysis
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_cause_analysis">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_cause_analysis</a>) they could
understand and it could be attempted (cf. 8D
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Disciplines_Problem_Solving">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Disciplines_Problem_Solving</a>).
<br><br>
<br>
1. on the IEEE concerns side: <br><br>
My analysis is that the digital thinking regression consists in putting
IEEE and IETF concerns in continuity (W3C is some kind of an example).
The architectural place for computers and networks to be in continuity is
the internet technology missing layer six. The easiest way of achieving
it is in conceptually extending posix to netix, i.e. a single command set
for everything as demanded by global distributed processing.<br><br>
<br>
2. on the ICANN concerns side:<br><br>
The problem of ICANN is that they are the result of a single government
contract but they want to be global. This means a global extension of
national sovereignty. This was good for all as long as that Gov could be
more or less neutral, its influence protecting us against crime. This is
no longer possible because the posix technology is not snoop proof, and
its vulnerability is at the network/posix discontinuity. This increases
the risks of cyberwar and surveillance capacities. The USG has chosen to
use this in order to only protect its citizens rather than everyone.
<br><br>
This is its job, but it means the end of the e-sovereignty limbo.
E-sovereignty cannot be limited to the physical boundaries of Westphalian
nation states. This means that the other states� national sovereignty
also has to become global. This was the essence of my initial ISO 3166
based reporting on the namespace unique single reality (1978/86). This is
expressed through VGNs (Virtual Global Networks). I held the concept for
years because the world was not prepared to 192 ICANNs by 192 Govs: crime
would have been the first to take advantage from it. Now, after Snowden,
the degree of political digital awareness has reached a sufficient level
to ensure ambient protection from criminal creeps.<br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>Now, once we have VGNs and presentation Layer six
netix continuity at least conceptually with us, we can use MS enhanced
cooperation organizations in order to organize the whole digisphere
ecosystem, probably as a World Digisphere Organization where we will have
to normatively accommodate multilaterality and MSism among Govs,
Business, and informed users, each of them having its own political,
technical, cultural, and legal contributors.<br><br>
However, we now have to be careful at staying balanced. Merkel/Hollande
positions would fragment the internet to the detriment of the French and
German users and industries. This is due to the common technical and
political BUG (of being unilaterally global). This is the ICANN bug; it
should not extend to Europe and then Russia, China, Brazil, etc.<br>
<br><br>
3. The BUG.<br><br>
The BUG is documented in an ICANN ICP-3 document when it states:
<br><br>
�The Internet's proper operation requires *assignment* of unique values
to various identifiers for different computers or services on the
Internet. To be effective, these assigned values must be made broadly
available and their significance must be respected by the many people
responsible for the Internet's operation. For example, every computer on
the public Internet is *assigned a unique IP address*; this address is
made known to routers throughout the Internet to cause TCP/IP packets
with that destination address to be routed to the intended computer.
Without common agreement to respect the assignment, the Internet would
not reliably route communications to their intended
destinations.�<br><br>
ICANN confuses its assignment technology, policy, and broadcasting (in
the UNIX �superuser� former heliocentric paradigm) with an impossible Sun
King political control on the internet. There is a pollution effect, as
we see in the Merkel/Hollande position where they want to secede from �
their own global shared territory.<br><br>
�A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone,
share" (<i>The Essential Tension</i>, 1977) says Khun. We are
confronted here with an architectonic political paradigm shift where a
political paradigm is what members of the political community, and they
alone, share. The confusion they currently share is not a paradigm. Sao
Paulo must be for them a way to start clarifying this confusion.<br><br>
Their confusion comes from the common shift to the cosmology principle:
on the internet, like everywhere, distribution is homogeneous and
isotropic, and so names and numbers are only conventions and not
nobilities. The map is not the territory. The same territory can have
many maps. <br><br>
It is only more convenient if most of the maps of the same territory use
the same coordinates and the toponymy, and because of that get organized
together. <br><br>
Now the network fragmentation as advocated by Germany is like closing the
roads rather than closing the doors. Closing the doors is safer, cheaper,
and faster. On the internet, closing the door is studying, developing,
validating, and using the missing security layer, Presentation Layer Six
and possibly capabilities. The simplest is to include them in the VGN
list of netix requirements.<br><br>
Everyone is welcome to come to Montpellier, from 5-11 July, to discuss it
at the IUCG Netix/VGN BarCamp.<br><br>
<br>
4. The ICANN attitude.<br><br>
How could you want us all on this list to trust ICANN after so many lies
about what we have known all along the way at the Montevideo meeting, the
unplanned Sao Paulo meeting, and grassroots origin of the /1NET list.
Now, we will be challenged to demonstrate that there are links with the
NTIA, GS1, etc.<br><br>
All this is absolutely normal. The only thing that is abnormal is that
people who can be so easily abused are in a position of influence. To the
point that one can say with Avri that one is just using �a cynically
opportunistic method of trying to achieve political critical Internet
resource goals that have nothing to do with the serious problem of state
surveillance on the world's people.�<br><br>
Who can be so professional about that? Reporting to who? The guess of
most is NSC. I suppose that AVRI distrusts them: the world consider them
seriously.<br><br>
This is why I prefer to go by the law of the source code, documented by
7,500+ RFCs, and applied by billions of processors.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
At 20:51 19/02/2014, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Over the past couple of months,
I have watched how alot of the comments are ICANN related. I feel that
for the most part ICANN is a continuously morphing entity that is
seriously committed to inclusion, participation from diverse stakeholders
and whose Policy Development Processes are open to comment, replies
etc.<br><br>
There are some other organisations such as W3C who have working groups
that are known to have only 6 days comment period etc. <br><br>
Whilst organisations differ in how they organise themselves, there are
aspects of what they do that require minumum threshholds of
accountability and best practice.<br><br>
It might be useful to determine a benchmark via ratings.These ratings
could be carried out independently.<br><br>
Regardless of the institution, something worthwhile looking at are some
sort of high level principles that can be used to audit or to be
considered best practice for organisations so they can be rated.<br><br>
I would be interested to see studies commissioned in this area pertaining
to issues of accessibility as it relates to meaningful
participation.<br><br>
Kind Regards,<br>
Sala<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
discuss@1net.org<br>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" eudora="autourl">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></blockquote></body>
</html>