This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.

[I-coordination] Rider to the definition of IG

nathalie coupet nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 18 23:24:08 CET 2013


Thank you so much, jfc! It's so nice not to be taken for an idiot. The learning curve has been tremendous, and I believe I have never read as much in my entire life to try to catch up. 
To all others new comers like me who feel there is so much they don't understand, fear being bullied for asking questions, and also those who are not native English speakers, I can tell you there is really nothing to fear. If you contact me off the list, and submit your question or concern, I can formulate the questions on your behalf, provide translation services if you wish, and query the people participating on this list; many of the people participating in the I* community only know what they know (which is usually limited to their narrow domain of expertise, as I have witnessed over the years watching on the sidelines and getting blank faces when I asked them a question of relevance to them in their functions at ICANN and elsewhere).  

I can provide translation services for free in all UN languages for all those who want to participate on this list.
 
Nathalie 


________________________________
 From: JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>; George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>; Dr. Ben Fuller <ben at fuller.na>; jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com>; Markus Kummer <kummer at isoc.org>; Nathalie Coupet <nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com>; Ali Hussein <ali at hussein.me.ke> 
Cc: i-coordination at nro.net 
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [I-coordination] Rider to the definition of IG
 


Thank

At 18:16 11/12/2013, nathalie
coupet wrote:
>What is the Internet? A document explaining what it is and what it is
not. Why it cannot be governed. 
Brian, Milton, Jorge, George, Ben, Nathalie, Ali,

When reading this list, I understand Nathalie: what is this Internet that
we have such a diverse set of opinions about?

The internet is an ARPA project that was documented by Vint Cerf in his
IEN 48 document. 

This document defines but also confuses (this is what I call the BUG) two
internets, which we actually need, so that our standing (mis)conceptions
root in its very inception. Brian, more than any other, you should guide
us through that issue, since:

- you are bilingual and the problem is the word "loose" that is
used by Vint as a compromise between the two orthogonal meanings of the
"global" spelling:
  -- in the French language of Louis Pouzin's Catenet 
  -- in the American language of ARPA, 
  i.e. between the two quite opposed but true motivations that he
documents for the interneting. 

- you have architecturally solved the issue in differentiating the end
and the fringe (RFC 1958), what permits to unbundle the host and the end,
has permitted Vint to solve the conflict between the end and the fringe
in the IDNA case where we opposed and blocked. This was through Pete
Resnick's and Paul Hoffman's satisfactory resolution (RFC 5895) between
the American language conceptual global access control conceived as a
responsibility and the world's diversity.

Brian, you have clearly taken for years (and in particular in keeping the
IETF apart from the WSIS) the position that the global uniformity of the
technology demanded by IEN 48 had to be kept separated in order to best
serve a universal diversity (cf. your above proposition). The internet is
a black box designed and managed by Techies advised by Academics that is
to be used by others. This is an extreme position of reference. 

My position is that the Internet is to entirely fulfill Vint's second
motivation, be people centered, and co-designed and co-managed by whoever
wants/needs it, and that can be considered as the extreme opposite
position of reference. However, I also think that some taxonomical
research would help a better mutualunderstanding. We discussed that with
Markus years ago and I am glad he is also pursuing that target (we might
ally our efforts sometime).

Milton's very well documented wishes for a neutral technical
administration and popular sovereignty establishes a utopian (as says
Jorge who is pragmatic) reminder of what we should consider, as Ben
adheres to, in the triple context identified by the IETF that strives to
only "influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work
better".

In the middle of all of these “cardinal” directions, George tries to keep
some operational reasonability that we (I think) can all support as long
as it does not engage the "possible" into a pre-determined
future that we would oppose or could consider as anthropologically (Ben)
or anthropobotically (me: the consideration of the “Man + Bot society”)
insane.

I think there is a point raised by Brian and Milton that we could settle:
the independence (Brian), the neutrality (Milton and Ben), and the
transparency (me) of the technical administration. 

- Brian wants to keep the inner technical parameters out of the IG reach
by definition.
- Ben thinks it is easy to justify, Milton thinks that it should be
defined first, outside of the determined group's role (Markus taxonomic
need again).
- I think it calls for a dynamic lot of common and mutual intelligent
engineering down to the people level that I call for as an "open
0net impact".

It seems that Brian, Ben, and Milton think the technical administration
should be global (American meaning); I think it should be global (French
meaning). I have no idea to which extent 1NET ISOC organizers refer
themselves or not to "globality"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globality) as a post-capitalistic vision
of the world, when they call for ICANN and IANA globalization, and if
they include them or not in the internet technical
administration.

Now, I think I could go so far as to agree with
Brian’s proposition if someone could: 

(1) quote a technical parameter that does not directly or indirectly
affect the way the internet is used by society.
(2) tell who is going to authoritatively decide that it does
not.


++1
Think in your best technical, user and person capacity (and possibly
rights and duties).

Question to Nathalie. Is that clearer to you?

jfc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/attachments/20131218/9e2452df/attachment.html 


More information about the I-coordination mailing list