<div dir="ltr">Dear JFC,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">my apologies for reacting so late to your email. Not only I have been busier than usual at work and with some annoying health issues in the family (people with kids will understand...) but the Communication on Internet Policy and Governance has generated quite some interest and I am trying to participate in discussions across different lists / communities.<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Before I go on, let me say that (without any intent to be or sound offensive) I find it difficult to understand your writing. I have the distinct impression that there is quite some "background systemic thinking" behind your positions, but I'm always unsure whether I interpret the terms you use in the way you intend them to be interpreted.<br>
<br>So, generally speaking, it would be very useful if you could point me at some sort of "glossary" to make sure I do not inadvertently misinterpret your words.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:25 PM, JFC Morfin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com" target="_blank">jefsey@jefsey.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><div class="">
At 16:07 12/02/2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I would like to let you know
that today (12 February 2013) the European Commission has adopted its
formal policy position on Internet governance, via a Communication to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: "Internet Policy and
Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet
governance" (COM(2014) 72/4).</blockquote><br></div>
Dear Andrea,<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>[SNIPPING A LOT]<br><br></div><div>I do not understand whether you agree with the objectives the European Commission put forth in the Communication on Internet Policy and Governance. In any case, if I understand correctly, your suggestion would be to:<br>
<br>- focus not on the "present governance ideal mechanisms"
but rather on the technology that will make them mandatory;<br>- include all the stakeholders’ concerns, starting with the
technical, industrial, and commercial concerns; <br>- review, correct and harden the technology for crime and snooping to be
more costly than their rewards;<br>- bring back ICANN under FCC influence instead of "military-industrial NSA/NTIA";<br>- develop a
"world digisphere enhanced cooperation organization";<br>- "confirm" the above-mentioned organisation via a multilateral treaty.<br><br></div><div>Do I understand correctly your proposals?<br><br></div>
<div>Best,<br><br>Andrea<br><br>P.S.: since my reply is coming quite late, I'm leaving JFC's original message below for reference, apologising for the extra bytes of traffic.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Unfortunately, the root of their thinking is outdated because the
"internet" that they are discussing is still phase one of the
ARPANET internetting proof of the catenet concept. We still have to
develop and deploy phase two (multitechnology transparency and capacity,
i.e. architectural neutrality and OSI layer six) before starting to
deploy further hardened and safe relational solutions. We are in the
middle of the road, but we have not considered building cars yet. We will
really know what we have to govern only by then – and it will most
definitely be quite different from what “they” wish to make us believe
(if I only judge by the name space historic tale that they use to justify
their technical and political claims).<br><br>
<br>
More seriously, if I may say so, in the middle of a confidence crisis,
the only solution proposed is to believe in pious vows without any
practical capacity to enforce them. The mistrust is not of the USA but
rather of the whole technology and its ad equation to humans. How was it
so technically simple (1) for the NSA to collect all these data (2) for
Edward to download 1.7 million confidential files and sneak them around
the world?<br><br>
My main worry is not being spied on, but that the data on me are so
poorly protectable by the technology and protected by those who snooped
them. The internet is a network of networks; Snowden is a spoof of
spoofs. Now, what they have found that to patch the problem is to
globally globalize globality. God bless us and ICANN.<br><br>
There is no intrinsic difference between the road and the internet
governances, and so the metaphor helps spotting the pretenses. The
network architecture is the road works. The governance is the way to
write highway codes and register plates. The DNS is the plate
registration system. The highway codes are the technical (RFC) and
behavioral (BCP) protocols. The technology is the way to build cars. The
law...should stay the law, which goes the same for the HR.<br><br>
I am sorry, but I am more interested in my car than in the car design in
general, and certainly more in my safe transportation than in the color
of my plates. All I know is that digital roads are not safe and that our
priorities are to lock our doors, and fasten our belts due to the road
bumps. Any governance system that does not start from a driver/user
security/safety oriented reshaping of the road curves, in not considering
road-type adherence, pavement refitting, signalization revamp, etc. is
not in tune with the people and, therefore, will be circumvented by them.
In addition, if one does it, it will only manage a transition. <br><br>
As Brian would say: this is mathematical.<br><br>
Therefore, the focus is not on the present governance ideal mechanisms
but rather on the technology that will make them mandatory. On the
internet, the only power is the power of reality, i.e. the power of the
code. I am sorry, but I do not trust code that is influenced by an
organization that does not think about protecting 1.7 million
confidential files from an external contractor who only signed a Standard
Form 312.<br><br>
<br>
<a name="1442bdad4a49fd15__GoBack1"></a>The resulting reasonable "then attitude” is
to stop considering something that does not exists, namely a so-called
internet, and consider what does exist, i.e. the RFCs that establish how
our computers can internet together. One may very well salt it with the
way the people behind the computer behave with the computer, just as we
consider the way people behave with their car. However, Internet
Governance MUST include all the stakeholders’ concerns, starting with the
technical, industrial, and commercial concerns so that the entire world
can judge and decide. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><b>At 23:13 12/02/2014, Mike
Roberts wrote:<br>
</b><br>
It should be noted that Milton's option 3 (*) was ICANN's original
intent, prior to intervention by government lawyers at the end of 1998.
<br><br>
(*) De-nationalization of the IANA function; i.e., removal of USG control
and delegation of it to ICANN. Note well: this does NOT require the
exclusion of governments from all involvement in ICANN.
</blockquote><br>
This confirms that:<br><br>
* ICANN cannot exist as a standalone multinational body, by lack of
practical use, without USG backing and, therefore, it has to be brought
back under FCC influence instead of military-industrial NSA/NTIA and a a
world digisphere enhanced cooperation organization has to develop and be
confirmed by multilateral treaty. ICANN should be one of its promoters
through Sao Paulo and be a stakeholder there, as a stakeholder
representative.<br><br>
* as being co-networks’ owners within the internet network of networks,
informed/independent IUsers must organize themselves and their IUse
(internet intelligent use) on an MS basis in a way that they can
individually trust:<br><br>
(1) their IANA files and functions <br>
(2) their intertech multitechnology support (requiring network
neutrality: the recent US Judge decision on the matter, actually creates
two internets).<br>
(3) their interuse extended functors (OSI presentation layer six and
above).<br>
(4) their IP usage until the operating system (posix) and networking
protocols (RFCs) have converged into an open free (netix) standard
continuity acknowledged by ISO.<br><br>
As a consequence, the MS IG can only be organized, at this stage, in/by
targeting an ultimate convergence of MS transitional efforts, most
probably documented through the preparation of a multilateral MS based
treaty on an international Internet use codes (people, institutions and
commerce) and world digital organization.<br><br>
In the meanwhile the common concern should be ethitechnical, i.e. how to
review, correct and harden the technology for crime and snooping to be
more costly than their rewards in the context of:<br><br>
* the commonly accepted aesthetic, the WSIS unanymously defined as being
a “people centered” information society.<br>
* the technological emergence of intellition, as the relational
intelligence between data that permits to infer non communicated
information and obsoletes snooping, <br><br>
There is a paradox at willing to change the nature of the IG and preserve
the technological and and the political status-quos. This is why I plan
to engage in the HomeRoot *experimentation<b>*</b> (along ICANN ICP-3
demands) because its very nature (Libre's continuation of the IETF
architecture, without proprietary constraint of any kind) obliges the
resulting Intertech/Interuse fringe to fringe strata to be technically,
operationnally, and to some extent economically, governed on an MS basis.
<br><br>
The interest of an European experimentation is that in addition to be
multistakeholder and multitechnology it will be multilinguistic, and
therefore include IDNA from the very begining, an ISO layer 6
presentation job. <br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><div class="">The press release of the
adoption is available at
<a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm" target="_blank">
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm</a> .<br>
The text of the Communication is available at
<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=4453" target="_blank">
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=4453</a>
.<br>
The statement by Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission
and Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, is available at
<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I086325" target="_blank">
http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I086325</a> .<br>
I hope you find this information useful and the content of the
Communication interesting.<br>
Best,<br>
Andrea<br><br>
</div><a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br>--<br>I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.<br>Twitter: @andreaglorioso<br>Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso</a><br>
LinkedIn: <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro</a>
</div></div>