This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to firstname.lastname@example.org. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.
akinbo at nira.org.ng
Mon Dec 9 12:16:15 CET 2013
..I agree with John on this platform. Its an avenue to streamline our
actions and move into the real world with actions.
If they are constraints to this formation, lets discuss.
On 12/9/2013 8:39 AM, JFC Morfin wrote:
> At 12:03 04/12/2013, John Curran wrote:
>> I am aware that Civil Society is working on such from the attached
>> email from Sala, but do not know about the Technical or Academic
> *At 12:03 04/12/2013, John Curran wrote:
> I am aware that Civil Society is working on such from the attached
> email from Sala, but do not know about the Technical or Academic
> There is a need for a 1NET group of voluntaries.
> Please, let not build another IESG with MS group Area Directors
> selected by Multi-Influence. It would only mean that 1NET is another
> Actually, I suggest that, once and for all, we stop these "community"
> now inaudible fancies and switch to*_trades_*.
> Let's get real.
> 1. The digital network was created by businesses in America and by
> government R&D to help businesses in Europe because at that time
> communications services were operated by monopolies and in the US
> under FCC licenses.
> Academics and their techies joined in the game because the USG paid
> them to develop ARPANET just as the French Gov paid for the Cyclades
> network they copied further on. The military industrial complex helped
> concentrate the US technology and services around the BBN technology
> against other private US ventures and the other Govs' ITU technology
> and services eventually considered as European led - in spite of all
> the ANSI, FCC and Telenet efforts in the OSI area.
> This Government level competition, that interfered with deregulation,
> has had a poor impact on business, growth, and people that was hidden
> by the whole digital ecosystem development but that we deeply suffer
> from today. It mostly benefitted former whiz kids who mostly developed
> on (post-) teenager markets so far. Not on trade markets.
> 2. This has impacted the world network digital architecture which has
> downgraded from a business and business model to an academic
> teacher/student one. Today, we have academics & techies in the lead of
> a constrained technology system with two kinds of users:
> - "students" who still believe that teachers know better, and NSA
> monitoring is to be built-in.
> - and people (them being in the public, military, private, civil,
> personal, etc. and criminal capacities) who have grown-up, left
> university, and became bored with all of those technical and academic
> fraternity governance games.
> Let be candid.
> I suspect that among professional and intelligent users no one gives a
> damn about who is what in the 1NET community steering comities. People
> want zero net (0NET) constraint on their business, life, security, and
> privacy. For 25 years, my personal business development has been
> hampered by a "technically-academically correct" congregation. This
> has to come to an end, and not to a Sao Paulo revival great mass.
> What is needed is a real world organized MSist structure that will
> concert, establish and make enforced rules through Govs, consensus,
> trade rules, and technologies (plural), about real economies and for
> real people development.
> The only question for 1NET is: "can we or do we want to contribute to
> the emergence of that real world?"
> - if yes, there is a need to create a WDO (World Digisphere
> Organization) together, on a concerted economy basis (where the
> metrics are conjugated people satisfaction, neutrality, and real
> money) rather than influenced by grants, wages, agendas, T&L
> sponsoring, dogmas, and egos.
> -If not, this is unfortunate, but it is still certain that reality's
> self-organized criticality will deliver the businessnet/peoplenet that
> we are entitled to long for. The transition may only be more brutal.
> The ball is here in the iStar CEO's field. If they did not deliver,
> not it will probably be in the field of some Governments (cf. WCIT)
> and/or the small and medium-sized businesses that now:
> - have the technological capacity to deploy (an) alternative(s) and
> look more innovative than the ICC members.
> - are most probably protected, after the reaction to the Snowden leaks
> and by the iStar CEO's joint interest, against criminal uses of their
> trade oriented explorations.
> This is this OMD/WDO and concerted economy concepts that we need to
> explore from now on. The Sao Paulo meeting should help in being a
> first gathering into that direction.
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at nro.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the I-coordination