<html>
<body>
Michel,<br><br>
This evaluation of yours is interesting. However, it is incomplete. It
posits that innovation dynamism will continue. This is correct.<br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>However, it does not consider the singularity's
impact on humanity itself. Let not be abused by what people do today.
They did not do 10 years ago, and they will not do 10 years from now. One
cannot conceive a stable "IG" without considering that
"I" will soon enough or already stands for
"intercomprehension". Let me be candid, either
Engelbart/Kurzweil are right and Google/NSA's people "augmented
brain" will control and take care of everything for us; or they will
not and we will extend our capacity to penetrate the complexity's
intelligence and will need the appropriate tools and a lot of innovation.
<br><br>
Therefore, your images of the army, blue helmets, soviets, sheriffs, and
stakeholder�s brigades are not wrong, but they are to cope with a
completely differently fragmented world, an old world. Kazimir (easier to
spell than Zbigniew Kazimir Brzezinski) is right, but the status-quo
dreamers (or intoxicators) are not: the internet is fragmented (the
networks of the network). The catenet concept is to concatenate them, not
to wipe their fragmentation. <br><br>
Technologies (EIN 48), global communities (RFC 6852), multinational
sovereignties (TNCs), cultures (multilinguistics), privacy (public and
private secrecy), etc. are additional fragmentations that
"myVGN" presentation layers (plural) six are to support in a
consistent manner. Consistency does not oppose fragmentations (plural);
on the contrary, it holds them together in the complexity's
glue.<br><br>
We face a techno-political issue, which means there are those who produce
(techies), those who organize (politicians), and those who put them in
competition (commerce) in order to extract the money we use to live. The
technicians permitt their benefits the politicians will internally tax,
and the soldiers will externally protect.<br>
- For centuries, the simplicity of the world permitted this
architectonics to be controlled by a single man (king). <br>
- Then, its diversity called for structures (democracy). <br>
- Now, its complexity demands systems (the polycracy that we are
experimenting). <br><br>
The king's political governance was human. The democratic political
governance was in the texts. The polycracy's political governance calls
for the entanglement of machines and their management by stakeholders. If
there is a single VGN it is dictature with the 14 stakeholders. If there
are national, ragional, trade, etc. VGNs this can be democracy with
elected/selected/designated VGN Master. If there is a multitude of VGNs
on an equal footing this is polycracy. <br><br>
We technicians have imagined and produced the machines of the
stakeholders, but no one (except some soldiers, people, and merchants)
has ever specified them until the WSIS, when "the people of the
world" unanimously assigned themselves an esthetic: that our
information machine entangled society must be people centric. <br>
- This is not very clear yet on a daily basis (lack of an
ethitechnic)<br>
- and it is opposed by those who want it to be money or power centered;
<br>
but this is all what we have if machines are to set-us free and not use
to command us.<br><br>
<br>
In addition, we have been explained by Einstein, and we fully observe the
interior/exterior/ulterior continuity of our "4D" space. It has
already entered in some of our Constitutions through the precaution
principle and duty (we have to live with the future as our
responsibility).<br><br>
Then, as if this was not enough, here comes the consequence of our
machines: the datamass! The Big, Bad, Bog data complexity that adds their
own three dimensions: the data, metadata (data on data), and syllodata
(data between the linked data).<br><br>
Frankly I do not know if this "7D" space that we are blatantly
starting to discover is a true vision of reality, but it is most likely
to be with us for a long time. This is because it explains quantum
coherence/decoherence, fits information and communication/intellition,
obeys cybernetics and logic/agorics, addresses Bohm's remaining questions
about implicate and explicate order
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order</a>), provides
good architectonic grounds to intercomprehension facilitation
technologies, and is in adequation with our political process and
institutions of our today�s reality.<br><br>
<br>
People have been manipulated, at least by the press, to focus on the
wrong issues in the Snowdenia case. This has helped some interests.
However, national, private, and individual surveillance agencies and
agents only extend what is typically characteristic of humans (apart from
orthogonality), i.e. survival and intellectual curiosity. <br><br>
Actually, Snowden has shown that<br>
- the Internet technology is vulnerable (even US citizens and
corporations cannot be protected from friends), <br>
- big intellition systems had to be developed (PRISM) in order to know
better how to protect a 7 billion people world. <br><br>
This illustrates that most of the information that our brain uses has
never been communicated: we do not obtain them by the communication of
"explicate" light speed data; but rather through
"implicate" CPU/brain speed intellition: the information that
makes sense from what we know or feel. And that last speed will be, like
in our brain, the speed of quantum computers. These are speed and
processes that ICANN cannot regulate; but many would like to control this
for money, greed, or protection. Here the stakes.<br><br>
<br>
Today, the NTIA's move is a smart move. Is it a good move for the US
executive in giving it a higher leverage over the rest of the world? And
in this way is it good for the world or a mistake? I do not
know.<br><br>
I, therefore, believe that our non-US citizen common precaution duty
(constitutional for French citizens at least) is to make sure that we
are:<br>
* neither engulfed in the consequences of a USG error, and ready to
assist the US citizens whose community is necessary to the internet and
the world.<br>
* nor be colonized by the US due to an insufficient understanding
of a smash-action of them to which we could not react fast enough.
<br><br>
This is why:<br><br>
1. I think the best is to work on the empowerment of everyone through an
intelligent and independent control of their VGN and their VGNIC
documentation, information, communication, and intellition
tools.<br><br>
2. I decompose the NTIA strategy along two aspects we can evaluate:
<br><br>
(1) transfer of the: IETF technology and IANA functions under the US
common and copyright laws, so we have to avoid depending on the need of
IETF technical derivatives and IANA dependent TLDs and DNs (i.e.
VGNs)<br><br>
(2) The uncoupling of the datamass from the communicated data, (with the
US imposed political retardant of not accepting a Multi-State-led
successor), so we need to empower everyone's self-sovereignty, in terms
of information, communication, and intellition (i.e. smart
VGNICs).<br><br>
This being kept in mind; we can certainly be open-minded at the first
degree level, watching our steps at the second degree level, and our soul
at the third degree level. Actually, this is nothing different from what
we are supposed to do since it was decided to make ARPANET (a US military
experimental system) global, i.e. operational in our own place instead of
our own technology. <br><br>
- At least until everyone can deploy his/her chosen names, numbers and
parameter across the global public good that has to be the internet and
its Intersem � semiotic internet new layer. <br>
- that day, the digisphere will have stabilized. Meaning that what we
call the IGovernance will be banal common civil and business life (many
businesses in every countries being trans-national); and that
CyberCommands and NSAs will exist in every nation. <br><br>
So, the real question is to know for us, nations and VGN masters to
determine our interests, as probably the NTIA did: splitting cyber
defense and power, from e-commerce, from social networking. IMHO, as VGN
masters we are to define our multitude's member policy and help our
country, region, trade, collectivity, family, etc. build their digital
doctrine and decide their strategy. It would be quite surprising if a
seven billion educated digitally meshed people could be satisfied with
one single authroritative ICANN :-) However, a well designed multi-spoke
hub could certainly help the transition, one additional spoke at a time,
progressively leading to and gathering millions of VGN in a smooth
transition.<br><br>
The only thing, if we want to succeed, is that nothing is to be decided,
only commonly agreed. This is why inititiatives are to be engaged, proven
and accepted by the multitude first, but in a way he "leaders"
will be able to accept.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
At 10:13 18/03/2014, Michel Gauthier wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">When considering all the inputs
on this list one sees that:<br><br>
1. the Internet City currently work without a Mayor in being ultimately
policed by the NTIA.<br>
2. Internet City however grows larger and larger and has started
distrusting its sheriff.<br>
3. So the Sheriff talks about quitting. However, none is happy with any
of his assistants becoming sheriff or them forming a sheriff club.<br>
4. there are several options as crime, corruption and disorder are
feared:<br>
- army takes over, and ITU keeps things quite, with
citizen squads<br>
- blue helmets come in: a Police Department is formed
under UN jurisdiction<br>
- popular auto-defense soviets start associating<br>
- each quarter selects its own Sheriff and they
cooperate.<br>
- each stakeholder freely associates or not in
brigades and keep his/her gun home<br><br>
Any other kind of option? Which one do you prefer?<br>
In such a city and in each options, how common services work, develop,
get payed, coordinate.<br>
<br>
Zbigniew Brzezinski, explained very well at the end of the Grand
Chessboard: the XXth century US are like the XVII/XIXth centuries UK: an
island confronted to the Continent. In such a configuration the peace of
the entire world can only result from a cooperation of every nation,
coordinated by the island. Otherwise the island get frustrated at being
left aside and a conflict results.<br><br>
The NTIA bet is that the Internet has changed that situation: it has made
the entire world a single continent where all the interests are entangled
in the same complexity.<br><br>
The second NTIA bet is that this complexity is no wider than the
Internet, at least for the cyberspace, and therefore that a well
organized IG can be enough to address the issue.<br><br>
The third NTIA bet is that ICANN will be par, by its own charisma, with
the other institutions that take care of the human political, economical,
cultural, military, police, legal, religious, etc. spaces.<br><br>
I do not know for sure, but I feel that the NTIA's view of the world is a
static dream.<br><br>
- A dream,because reality is more complex (the digisphere is wider than
the cyberspace), but that this can be discussed.<br>
- Static because they seem to consider the internet development is
completed. As, if from now on, the internet development will only be
incremental and smooth enough to be seamlessly governed by the newly
established IG. This is like if they have transformed their status-quo
strategy in faith.<br><br>
I would be quite interested by comments.<br><br>
M G.</blockquote></body>
</html>