<html>
<body>
<br>
I had today carefully considered Parminder's internet symptoms
description, while creating the DNSA
(<a href="http://dnsa.eu/" eudora="autourl">http://dnsa.eu</a> -
<a href="http://idnsa.org/" eudora="autourl">http://idnsa.org</a>).
<br><br>
I fully agreed with it, except on the lesser *strategic* relative
importance given to a public policy oversight of the technical standards
and critical resources. NTIA's annoucement shows that Parminder's
evaluation is correct, and mine too. The decision of the globalization
(and therefore how the globality is to be) is not even left to Sao
Paulo's attendees. VGNs made it urgent: it is now an US fait-accompli.
<br><br>
I, therefore, adjusted Parminders description of the Internet US
globalization as follows: <br><br>
"The following key political and economic forces shape the Internet
today, in decreasing order of impact; <br>
1. Extravagant profit motives of a
few TNCs(transnational corporations), almost all US based; <br>
2. The laws and policies of the US,
which are enforced, overtly and subtly, on and through these global
corporations; and, <br>
3. The policy framework of some
economic groups of developed countries, like the OECD and CoE (for
instance, OCED's principles for Internet policy making). <br><br>
There is a huge nexus between 1 and 2, which together constitute the most
powerful, in fact, quite overwhelming, force shaping the Internet today.
Meanwhile, the US is also largely able to get its way with regard to the
3 above. <br><br>
Internet technical standards and critical resource management bodies also
have a strong impact. These bodies have swung between doing extremely
good work to frequent capture by the above corporate interests. Things
are not going in the right directions with the evolution of the Internet
vis-a-vis canons of equity, social justice, cultural and linguistic
support, and personal empowerment."<br><br>
However, this is only a description that permited us to discuss patch
propositions. Now, we need to cure the disease. We need a diagnosis and a
treatment. <br><br>
My personal diagnosis is architectonic: the internet construction is
blocked at an architectural stage by a TNCs short term interest
status-quo strategy indirectly supported by the US Congress, which
incrementally favors a limited few, to the actual detriment of all. This
situation can only degrade in disruptive criticality. The doctrine of
this strategy is published technically through the RFC 6852, and
politically through the Montevideo Statement: transfering authority to
the economic globality<br><br>
My position is to correct that situation by pragmatically transferring
the completion of the internet fundamental construction plan, from the
objective alliance of those who block it to the multitude of people,
interests and processes, i.e. completion rather than revolution, and a
coopetition rather than a confrontation between Multi-Shareholders and
Multitudinal-Stakeholders. <br><br>
"Multitudinal" means here that what is at stake is something
inherent to the internet concept that is far wider than
"globality" as a political achievement of
"globalization"
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globality">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globality</a>. We want the internet to
constantly expand toward the multitude of solutions that are able to
address the multitude of needs of the multitude of people. This is only
possible through a deliberately embodied innovation open capacity
allowing each internet informed, capable and intelligent (i.e. freely
connected regardless of the area) "IUser" to facilitate
whatever he/she and others need. <br><br>
I initially wrote this after-noon when preparing this memo that possibly
"t<a name="_GoBack"></a>he MS War Will Not Take Place" � It was
because I hoped "pigs in the poke" proposition would not
prevail on our's to unleash the multitude of VGNs by a multitude of VGN
Masters documenting the multitude of their InterPLUS capacities [*] (all
their presentation layer tools, services, formats, securities, etc.)
through the multitude of their VGNICs. <br><br>
The NTIA seems to have evaluated that this would not anymore "allow
the private sector to take leadership for DNS management" and tries
to bypass the seven billion multitude's stakeholders by "prince's
fiat". <br>
<br>
jfc<br><br>
[*] Apps are a non meshed type of such capabilities: more than 1 millions
are already proposed. PLUS (presentation layer on the user side) is the a
la Steve Jobs response to the BUG (being unilaterally global) post
Snowdenia reinforced alliance. I hoped that ICANN, RIRs, etc. could
cleverly steer the political shallow waters: the NTIA has now made
sure they could not. <br><br>
The question now is: which Gov will be the first to sponsor a national
VGNICs? Something we all wished to avoid outside of a concerted decision.
IMHO the NTIA made an unilateral political mistake under technical
misunderstanding and lobbying pressure. This day is a bad day for the US
and the world multitude. <br><br>
Alea jacta est.<br><br>
<br><br>
At 08:35 14/03/2014, parminder wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">To understand how the
<a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164%20">
proposal</a> from Just Net Coalition helps developing countries one needs
to first understand 'what and who' shapes the evolution of the Internet
today, as the Internet itself shapes our larger social structures,
whereby the impact of this 'what and who' goes rather far and
deep...<br><br>
To keep it brief, it is my understanding that the following key political
and economic forces shape the Internet today, in the decreasing order of
impact;
<ol>
<li>Extravagant profit motives of a few global corporation, almost all US
based;
<li>The laws and policies of the US, which are enforced, overtly and
subtly, on these global corporation; and,
<li>Policy framework of some clubs of rich countries, like the OECD and
CoE (for instance, OCED's principles for Internet policy making).
</ol>There is huge nexus between 1 and 2, which together constitute the
most powerful, in fact, quite overwhelming, force shaping the Internet
today. Meanwhile, the US is largely able to bull-dodge its way with
regard to 3 above as well. <br><br>
Apart from the above, Internet technical standards and critical resource
management bodies, also have a strong impact. These bodies have swung
between doing extremely good work to frequent capture by the above
corporate interests. In my view, their public policy oversight while
important is relatively the lesser problem right now as compared to other
issues listed above. <br><br>
Now, before we move forward to frame a response to the basic question you
asked, 'how does the Just Net Coalition's (JNC)
<a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164%20">
proposal</a> help developing countries', we need to form some level of
agreement on two propositions.
<ol>
<li>The above is largely the right picture of the forces that are shaping
the Internet today.
<li>Things are not going in the right directions with the evolution of
the Internet vis a vis canons of equity and social justice (for instance,
10 top websites had respectively 25, 50 and 75 percent of the total page
views in the US in 2000, 2005 and 2010, and things have gone considerably
worse since).
</ol>If you strongly disagree with either of the above two propositions,
JNC's proposal will make no sense to you. But if you do agree, there is a
lot of ground for us to look at remedial political solutions. And I am
ready to take up such a discussion, admitting that our proposed solution
may only be one among many possible, and even perhaps not the best one.
Our group, in its collective wisdom, thought that what is needed in the
current context is an counter-magnetic field to the highly dominant
forces today, that would be created by developing an anchor point inside
the UN system which begins to undertake normative discussions on issues
of Internet policies, and where needed comes up with higher norms and
principles (as OECD has come up with), policy frameworks, and as and when
needed, binding conventions and treaties.As happens with every sector in
the UN, it will be much more about developing higher norms and
principles, much fewer policy frameworks and rather infrequent
conventions or treaties.... <br><br>
Such a counter magnetic field alone can even begin balancing the
lopsidedness of the current political and economic model around the
Internet, and it goes to reason that such a balancing will serve the
interests of developing countries, in fact of all marginalized groups
everywhere in the world.I hope you agree. </blockquote></body>
</html>