<html>
<body>
At 17:24 13/03/2014, George Sadowsky wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">How to represent “the rest of
us” who number in the billions has been the subject of some dispute in
the history of ICANN. While IMO this issue has not yet been finally
resolved, the ALAC effort is sufficiently developed that it deserves
attention, respect and support from all of “the rest of
us.”</blockquote><br>
Dear George,<br><br>
As you know I was part in that "history", and I keep
"atlarge.org" at the disposal of the "rest of us"
once the relation with ICANN and other VGNICs will have
clarified.<br><br>
For the time being, I have considered your introduction of the IS-Journal
paper. This is at last a serious attempt to discuss the reality of the
issue. If you engage in that kind of reflection, then it is possible to
discuss what really counts: how to best institutionally help the couple
man/machine in a global and universal, i.e. architectonic context,
without being influenced by the constraints of the existing technical,
institutional, and political architectures too early (i.e. having the
possibility to explore the new paradigm before being bogged down in our
former paradigm mental habits). This is not an easy task as this makes
the difference between the possible and utopia.<br><br>
Your first ICANN centered attempt was inadequate, or at least premature,
as ICANN is not architectonically mandatory. This time, I adhere to your
second approach.<br><br>
The first need is certainly to be in mental harmony with the complexity
of the model. This calls for an understanding of complexity, something
that is easier for us as we have the internet model itself. RFC 3934
explains to us that in very large systems (the internet is a very large
system, and its governance is an even larger system) one must obey the
principle of simplicity. KISS, keep it stupid simple. <br>
· This is because cybernetics is
simple: just a monolectic action and reaction (there is the internal
enaction but we will leave it aside for the time being). <br>
· Logic is the dialectic chaining
cybernetics couples (thesis anti-thesis) into conclusions
(synthesis).<br>
· However, our new world attains full
normal life freedom. It is agoric, a normal crowd, a fractally
deterministically (philia oriented/entangled) polylectic chaos. <br><br>
This is a cybernetic entanglement with two main layers: <br>
· spirit (continuities) : the
determinist content of data, metadata, syllodata.<br>
· and body (discontinuities)
: the apparent continuity of physical quanta.<br>
· with their intellectual interface
that we “cerebrically” (what is related to natural/artificial brains)
extend by prosthetic facilitating interconnected thinking. <br>
<br><br>
This leads us to an anthropobotic society where bots change the
Aristotelian definition of policy (the art of commanding freemen) into
the art of commanding freemen extended (not augmented) by interconnected
bots.<br><br>
You will note that my model:<br>
· opposes Doug Engelbart “Augment”
vision and therefore his followers. Man is not changing, but his
artificially aided reach is extending, so is his assisted discrimination
power and analytical ability.<br>
· encompasses the one you quote, and
much more, what addresses the complaint of Milton. <br>
<br><br>
Layered models are local thinking helpers for trying to avoid double
constraints but actually there are only two “mathematical” poles:
continuity and discontinuity, and the increasingly complex and
diversified meshing that gathers them, where complexity is the entangled
simplification of simplicity from continuity to discontinuity through
coherence and decoherence. <br><br>
Then, as you say, the proposed model has huge lacks (governments, users,
Vint Cerf’s initial plan, people, cultures, languages, etc.) but this is
just a model for a given thinking that attempts to capitalize on the
existing world. As you say, “the authors propose a layering of issues in
Internet governance according to their relative position between strictly
technical and strictly social.”<br><br>
I might venture in associating social to a continuous philia we might
hope and technical to an harmonization of discontinuities.<br><br>
The problem we really face is that we meet a singularity, i.e. a change
in the human history attractor making it a single point that can make
smooth (as an inflexion) or not (leading to a criticality). <br><br>
This is the time where humanity has already or will switch from an
anthropologic to an anthropobologic nature: <br>
· today, removing bots would be the
worst genocide ever; <br>
· after the singularity it would be
humanity’s collective suicide (actually we probably have passed the
singularity’s inflexion point, the point on the old attractor after which
it cannot be avoided). <br><br>
In that new context, one cannot split things as being strictly technical
and social any more. When we need machines to survive, machines become a
Human Right by themselves. In that new paradigm, under that new
attractor, content stands for structured ideas that a machine can present
and possibly utilize.<br><br>
We replicate the preceding singularity: when Socrates/Plato opposed and
Aristotle synthesized. <br><br>
Socrates did not want to use scripting (the new technology of the time)
because he said it would kill thinking. Thinking had to live. Plato
responded that he was not fixing thinking but rather ideas, snapshots of
thinking. This is the passive content of datagrams. <br><br>
Aristotle commented that, once scripted, ideas would live their own
lives. This is what I call intelligram, i.e. the datagram (or actually a
cortege of them) that was sent to be processed, in a certain way to
produce an intended/(multi)agreed/expected result. <br><br>
I know this first hand. Spreading active content use globally was my job
the internet has counter-strategically delayed for thirty years. I am
living with this “IG” issue and its con and pros for a long: actually ten
years before. Wiener understood the reason why when he said that
“Man has created the machine to his image”. This is because one can then
add, “and to his convenience”. However, it is still to the convenience of
some: we have to extend it to the convenience of every and each
one.<br><br>
Actually, we have a simple metaphor to help us: in an anthropobotic
society, we can identify a dichotomy in the machine part which is
equivalent to the human social/technical split. From a hardware/software
machine point of view, there is something that is new for them as for us:
the human brainware, how we collectively use interconnected
machines.<br><br>
This helps us identify that the problem is first in the way that we
apprehend the machines and, therefore, also in the way the machines
cooperate with us.<br><br>
You said “Using the working definition of Internet governance adopted by
the WGIG in 2005: I<i>nternet governance is the development and
application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in
their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules,
decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and
use of the Internet</i>. How might the discussions on 1net be enlarged in
a productive manner to address some of the issue areas included in the
above definition, other than the ones that have received extensive
discussion to date? Define this as problem no. 2, if you like, but
its really a meta-problem. The real problems are the ones
listed above.”<br><br>
The real problem is that we solve the problems that we know and that they
have undergone extensive discussions. The difficulty is that these
problems result from meta-problems that we have not identified, either
because they are new or that their very novelty is the very reasons why
the current solutions are to be reviewed. This is why I am not at all
interested in ICANN specifics, and I find the WSIS 10 year old definition
of the Internet Governance as the first thing to review. The point is not
to change it but to deepen it. At that time they considered a new
technology global system, not a new humanity phase.<br><br>
I feel that the first thing we have to accept is that the internet is an
epiphenomenon; the real phenomenon is the digital renormalization, i.e.
the paradigmatic switch from Euclid to Jacquard allowing us to skip
Leibnitz’s calculus infinitesimal approximations and accept his quantum
(binary) thinking. <br><br>
This started with Poincaré’s non-demonstration of the “n-body” problem,
continued with Plank and Gödel, the cosmologic and relativity principle
of Einstein, Louis Pouzin’s catenet, Vint Cerf’s IEN 48 first motivation
until the business interest in the status quo denounced by RFC 3869 came
to block the nearly ready deployment of the second motivation. I think
this was unlocked through the viral launch of the VGN concept (which is
simply the application of the cosmological principle to the digisphere,
i.e. the vision and use of the discontinuities of the universe’s
continuity from everyone’s perspective).<br><br>
Then, we can consider the 1983-2003 experience, the 2004-2014 status quo
trying to gain a business advantage from all of what has been accumulated
since the early 1960s and decide to pursue this status quo effort (until
the singularity blows it up), or unleash the technology while it still
can smoothly resume its nominal progression as per Vint’s 1978 project.
This is what I expect as a necessity for the VGN trend, where each VGN
demand a transparent neutrality for its own technology, as required by
its supported relational space and their unlimited diversity of their
multitudinal stakeholdership (that is not globality as commonly discussed
in the NY press).<br><br>
All of this results from what I therefore understand as a
multitudinal-stakeholdership or polycracy. Democracy is a close garden
possibility (every member will vote on a common decision along a common
law and organization), while polycracy is a “no king, no president, no
vote, only running code and living mode” open garden system. Everyone can
discuss (every process can be considered), and make their mind up and
decide on their own, making the common decision dynamically emerge.
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Bertrand de la Chapelle has been
discussing the international dimension of these issues in his
cross-boundary jurisdiction project, and he is raising really important
issues and providing insights into the nature of this problem.
However, as much if not more attention needs to be paid to these issues
at the national level. Where are national governments being faced
with these issues as a part of their responsibilities. How can
other sectors assist in making this happen? Which other actors play
a part in improving things, and is this happening. How can 1net
comment meaningfully on these issues?<b></blockquote><br>
</b>Could you please provide me with Bertrand’s document(s) URL? Let us
remember that Westphalian concepts are inherited in a broad part from
Grotius’ propositions for the High Sea Right. I am sure that, what I
expect to be the Relations-States, related concepts will widely depend on
the Right of the Digisphere that we will uncover. This is why I am
protesting against the inability to access the Tallinn Manual for free.
International law has begun with the laws of war and peace of God. <br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a><br>
What we observe is that sovereignty is horizontally extended and
vertically diluted and, therefore, entangled among different
power/capability layers of global, national, local, and personal reach.
In addition, it seems illusory to discuss governance without having
strategic and precautionary doctrines and a strong command of
architectonic subsidiarity. All of these things are here, not formally
assembled, but here. There are strong globalization interests and
momentum
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globality">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globality</a>). Yet I think it is more
complex. Look at Putin proposing a Russian passport to all the Russian
people in former USSR countries. <br><br>
I do not know if they are adequate for the situation but, as IUCG, I want
to first see the real “Internet 2nd motivation” (or “inter+”) in VGN
common open living mode (and not only in institutionally/commercially
driven mode) before any theorizing, i.e. proceeding to a commented
observation. <br><br>
One of the opportunities for testing it in a real operation is for the
Digital Name Services Association that organizes to take care of the
cartography of the different class-roots as per the VGNICs’ requirements.
I understand that one of them is a FLOSS request for ONS “peer roots” in
order to better comply with the various national laws. <br><br>
Best<br>
jfc</body>
</html>