[At-Large] [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Sun Jan 12 19:22:09 UTC 2014


Thank you for your today two todays sighs of concerns because they 
cover all our difficulties:

>At 12:50 12/01/2014, William Drake wrote:
>And yet we have numerous loud voices saying on the 1Net, governance, 
>Best Bits, etc. mailing lists that 1Net and the Sao Paulo meeting 
>are controlled by ICANN and other dark forces committed to 
>preserving the status quo and US domination and so global civil 
>society must rally to resist these oppressors etc etc

In our wanting to be a people centered information society (Geneva 
declaration), what counts is the result for the people, i.e. the way 
the hardware and software support brainware, i.e. an adequate law due 
to an adequate code.

Let us consider the sense of the words we are confronted with:

1. An equal footing for all stakeholders engaged in the management 
and governance of any, global or not, resource of other people is an 
unacceptable intrusive tyrannical interference with their rights, 
dignity, privacy, intimacy (that is condemned by the Geneva 
declaration IRT to States) - unless each of these persons has freely 
demanded it for themselves.

2. Yet Charade's claim sounds perfectly right.

We are, therefore, in a double constraint situation.

Where is the bug? It is in the wrong claim that ICANN would be a 
unique global resource.

The reality is that:

- the digital namespace is unlimited and the IETF to some minor 
technical extent and ICANN for political reasons have made it a scarcity.

- the same limitation spirit, which was advisable for a proof of 
concept, has continued to prevail, polluting the Internet 
technological development and bogging down innovation in its initial 
uniform governance and opposing innovation.

The lack of innovation oriented technical governance has resulted in 
the observed lack of architectural evolution that the users of the 
world need. Snowden is not actually reporting NSA misbehavior; he is 
reporting the obsolescence of the 1983 internet when compared with 
the 2014 world which permitted it. ICANN as a unique global necessary 
resource has become a technically outdated bug that has to be 
corrected. This is not the sole architectonical update to consider, 
and so it should be carried out in a concerted manner, i.e.:

1. each multistakeholder, i.e. each person, entity, organization, 
government, etc. having to subsidiarily decide how to correct 
his/her/its "ICANN global unicity bug", must be informed of 
his/her/its existing and individually or cooperatively devisable 
options, and decide by his/her/its own on their merits and mutual 
best advantages.

2. the same validation and possible enhancement consistency process 
should be carried out and permanently continued in every area of the 
digisphere (i.e. the digital part of reality) in order to ensure the 
human right to a complete decent, efficient, and protected entire life.

This will digitally extend the multi-globally fully interoperable 
human + bots diversity where every person is on an equal footing with 
every other person.

NB. The US is not particularly implied in all this (except exercising 
entrepreneurship in that area without sufficiently imagining the 
consequences): it is only that the American language did not help the 
conceptual transition from a uniform to a diversified global space. 
This is embodied in the Internetting project (IEN 48) by the "loose 
sense" appropriately given by Vint Cerf to the word "local". 
Transition was in the evolution of the sense to be innovatively 
applied to "local". However, a "loose sense" is not something that 
developers, politicians, salespeople, and computers understand or 
agree upon easily. So instead to apply to trades, virtualities, other 
technologies, competitive alternatives, etc. "local" stayed uniquely 
geographically monopolistic.

>At 10:35 12/01/2014, William Drake wrote:
>Volunteering to try and help facilitate a process shouldnt require 
>body armor.

I am afraid that humans being humans, it is the rule everywhere.

The reason why is, from experience, the inability of humans to 
understand each other in changing contexts, and moreover when people 
must understand each other over the specific improvement of the context.

You have those who want to carry the change, those who want to 
protect their status, and those who are waiting in order to see what 
happens. It is very frustrating for the first ones to be delayed, 
opposed, and passed over by the second ones who benefit from their 
positions, and not to be supported by the third ones who feel that 
they do not know enough to decide who is right.

I found, however, that you may avoid the weight of the body armor, 
enjoy the human show, and obtain what you want in trying to 
understand what really happens and use brainware (networked assisted 
cooperation) hacks. This is why I plead for software (organizational) 
and hardware (material) work that may help in demonstrating your 
point of view without having to resort to martyrdom.

The IETF prefers "running code" to "kings, presidents, and voting" 
(you could also add "christs"). One can give a pretty scientifically 
acceptable explanation why and a successfully experienced "how to" 
guide, but this will be for another day.


More information about the At-Large mailing list