Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] The reason why

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 09:59:36 -0400

On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 02:58:39PM +0200, Jefsey wrote:
> This explains why we do not want to be subject, through an US
> incorporated structure, to a Law which considers us as edge
> providers' products. 
 
> We demand our Governements to protect us from this legal creep

So, don't use Google's stuff.  Won't that solve your problem?

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 17:56:31 +0200

>So, don't use Google's stuff.  Won't that solve your problem?

No.The internet is Google and every other edge provider (including 
you and me)'s stuff. It is also billions of VGNs that ignore what a 
VGN might be. The network Nash Equilibrium is disturbed by the US law 
resulting from the initial 1970+ FCC decisions. The same as code is 
law, law induces code.

IMHO, as long as the network architecture stays unfished, it is 
unstable and law has an uncertain impact. If law was universally US 
or universally French (probably the two most opposed I know in that 
area I know [cf. the quoted ruling and the French constitution 
precautionary duty which obliges us to oppose it]) there would not be 
any problem immediate problem. The lack of international equilibrium 
is due to their simulteanity. However, it is probably true to a 
lesser extent when cross considering many legal systems and technical 
approaches.

IMHO, the target is to lesser their impact and help their coexistence 
in the least disruptive manner. The best way who probably that both 
acknowldeges, learn and understand the logic of the other and 
develops its own project with an international contingency plan. This 
would take into account the situation where the other takes a 
temporary or final lead (there could be fluctations as status-quo 
moves to a more dynamic strategical set).

This is the way I read the NTIA and the FCC attitude, and this is the 
way I lead the FSP4NET approach. However, we need to take into 
account that the NTIA move has an immediate motivation, I consider as 
similar to the IEEE, ISOC, IAB, IETF, W3C one, supported by RIRs and 
ICANN: the I*structure has to scale for many reasons. Were we may 
discagree is to know (and this is another Nash Equilibrium to 
understand) if it is up or down.

Take care.
jfc

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 14:21:25 +0200

Hi Jefsey,

I am not sure of your conclusions if they are real totally or correct
totally. However, I think the solution is with the
communities/societies hands, if they participate more often then they
will be able to solve their users' problems, or if you are able to
convence all users of your ideas then they will be more involve to
solve their related issues with those institutes. I recommend that you
get in touch with ISOCs within your region and get acceptance first
from their memebrs, then you will be able as ISOC to influence others
directions. International and regional societies make big differences.
You need to advertise correct-and-accepted-ideas through
societies/documents not only through individual discussion lists.

AB

On 5/9/14, Jefsey <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Internetgovtech mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech
>

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 19:18:57 +0200

At 14:32 11/05/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>I recommend that your ideas get in touch with ISOCs within your region
>and get acceptance first from their memebrs, then you will be able as
>ISOC to influence other organisations (companies are targeting
>business not charity) as google directions. Companies try best to
>follow societies/regions not individuals. International and regional
>societies make big differences. If societies have good relationships
>then they will be better represented, but if they don't then we should
>blame them not blame the organisations that are trying to make money
>while the society/region is useless or unsuccessful in solving their
>own finance-problems.

Dear Abdussalam,

I suggest you have a look at the list of the ISOC sponsors.... 
Actually, the way the network develops is by progressive global 
dissemination. It started with telex, telephone, data (catenet), 
protocols (internet) and now has, with some delay, returned to the 
june 1978 situation (one month prior IEN 48): when Tymnet announced 
its ACT technology. The Internet protocol support can now sort the 
presentation stratum (formats, languages, intellition) at the fringe 
to fringe layers atop of the end to end datagram transport (cf. RFC 
1958) and clean the web/apps confusion.

This means that ISOC and its followers/sponsors are both our allies 
(for a robust content transport) and fierce opponents (they wish an 
US technical and legal status-quo to the benefit of the large edge 
providers and the disadventage of the small ones we all are, in case 
ASAP - applications as a protocol might help us to ally our service 
capacities). They do not want to see us as worrying co-stakeholders 
but to keep seing us as paying consumers ("the customer is the 
problem, the solution, and now the competition").

RFC 6852 (standardization modern paradigm) clearly defines the rules 
of the game. The technical references are now the "global 
communities". As a result there is no more a global unique referent 
as the IAB was, and there is no more a single appeal procedure. I 
wanted to enlight it in appealing RFC 6852, in order to force ISOC to 
acknowledge that either RFC 6852 was wrong and they still were the 
ultimate internet point of reference, or to state they were not 
anymore. On March, 14th, their USG political sponsor has raised the 
question with far more publicity than I could have get in proposing 
that ICANN takes that lead. ICANN, for the time being, has 
disregarded our too long delayed emergence. So did Sao Paulo.

So, the responsibility is now for us (VGN Masters) to take control of 
our own destiny, and if VGNs are, as I believe, the right 
architectonic networking cells, we will simply become the largest 
"global community" market, free from the early edge dinosaurs who 
will have wasted a big opportunity. Architecturally it was 
unadvisable to split from the ICANN approach and invest in ML-DNS 
(multi-ledger DNS), before RFC 5895 and RFC 6455 had not been fully 
investigated by the IETF. Now the time has technically come. For 
investigation, documentation, experimentation, representation. This 
is what I prefer to invest in rather than arguing in the stratum 
below (transport). Moreover, what is of real interest for me is the 
stratum above this presentation stratum (that has to be eventually 
completed or at least well implemented): i.e. the semiotic stratum.

Best
jfc

> > "By now, most people know who Google is and what Google does. Google
> > serves billions of online users in this country and around the world
> > …  With little or no revenue from its users, Google still manages to
> > turn a healthy profit by selling advertisements within its products
> > that rely in substantial part on users' personal identification
> > information … in this model, the users are the real product. "
> >
> > http://www.scribd.com/doc/189329787/Google-Privacy-Policy-Ruling
> >
> > providers' products. We consider ourselves as the independent users
> > of a common resource we co-organize through our VGNs and we pay
> > twice: (1) as an ISP subscriber and (2) as a tax payer having to
> > compensate for the Google's tax deductions.
> >
> > We demand our Governements to protect us from this legal creep, and
> > our engineers to technically defend us from it. We therefore cannot
> > adhere to a Sao Paulo document which reserves network neutrality for
> > further discussions. We certainly are strangled right now, but we are
> > too many to die.
> >
> > jfc morfin
> > fsp4.net, bootstrapper