From jefsey@jefsey.com Sat Jul 13 16:39:52 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B1AA21F9DF2 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:39:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.822 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.822 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.281, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fh-ZDVuMzBxu for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:39:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C6A21F9C7A for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:39:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lns-c10k03-v-62-35-238-138.dsl.sta.abo.bbox.fr ([62.35.238.138]:51154 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Uy9Pm-0000Ji-EA; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:39:46 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 01:39:41 +0200 To: iucg From: jefsey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20130713233947.D6C6A21F9C7A@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU, At-Large Worldwide , governance@lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [iucg] RFC 6852 appeal X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:39:52 -0000 Dear Members,

I appealed the IESG and now the IAB concerning RFC 6852. You will find all the documentation on this appeal and the related debate at http://architf.org. The site is under preparation, the mailing list is open.

Why this appeal?

My main point is that RFC 3935 had stated that the mission of IAB, IETF, and IRTF were to influence those who design, use, and manage the Internet in a way so that it works better. This was an absolute target and, therefore, an architectonic target (belonging to the construction of the world, in this case of the digisphere). RFC 6852 changes that. The IABn IETF, IEEE, W3C and ISOC standardization paradigm is market economy related.

This is not bad news. It could could foster some more innovations. However, it is a relative target.
No replacement is provided at the top layer of our concerns : we do we digitally want?. This is just not considered as long as all of us keep happily purchasing.

Risk of radical monopoly

This means that we run into the risk of organizing a radical monopoly if it is not encapsulated within an adequate multiconsensual framework where the top layers’ concerns are addressed in a current, appropriate way (actually before RFC 6852 only a few had identified the risk resulting from the fact thath the first human made "universal" [like cosmos, life, etc.] had no plan. No one in the cockpit: implicitly everyone thought that the IAB wise men were in control. Actually, they are not).

According to Wikipedia, a radical monopoly (Ivan Illich) results from the dominance of one type of product rather than the dominance of one brand. One speaks about a radical monopoly when one industrial production process exercises exclusive control over the satisfaction of a pressing need, and excludes nonindustrial activities from competition.

At this stage, RFC 6852 calls on the inclusion of every SDO (technical standardization organizations). If we were to forget the regalian domain, civil society, and international organizations‘ and others stakeholders' normative rights, the monopoly over the digital global commons and global ecosystem stewardship would progressively drift toward the members of the "OpenStand" agreement (the text of RFC 6852). (http://open-stand.org). Exclusively, the industry and the engineers.

My Civil Society open proposition

My Civil Society based proposition is for an "NDO" (norms documentation organization) open debate on the way to address the main question: “what is the digital world that we want and how do we manage to control what we will get?”.

Why do I speak of norms and not of standards or agreements? This is the confusion from which we suffer. Norms describe what we have or want. Standards describe how we want to obtain it. Agreement are over the way we use what we got. The digisphere is made of several architectures in different areas in order to address a large diversity of needs. The debate that I am calling for is to discuss the normative esthetic that we want for it.

- The WSIS stated that it had to be people centered.
- RFC 6852 states that it has to consider market economics.
- My personal goal is for everything to work better for everyone.

My goal is not a dream

This is not a dream; it is a different layer that humanity has never had to consider before. Up to now, from ancient Greece, politicians were to manage the City and insure and protect its internal and external peace through judiciary and military powers. Now, we have to be careful about the way we build the City’s environment, so that we do not build a City where people would face conflicts due to our past bugs. Like, for example, with global warming. We have to consider the digital and e-societal pollution that we may create.

This kind of care results from the precautionary principle. It states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, to the environment , or to the future, in the absence of scientific and political consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an act. In Europe, this is a constitutional duty (Lisbon Treaty) together with the duty to undertake preventive action, in which rectification at the source is a priority and that the origin of the harm should pay. It was crafted for the natural environment, but in France at least, as a part of the constitutional block, its spirit applies to every law and obviously applies also to the artificial cyberspace environment.

A foreseen human step ahead

Because this is new, and we have never had architectonical duties aside from the human, political, judiciary, and military duties, we have to invent a process together. It is to involve Governments, International organizations, private sector, and Civil Society members. Moreover, we have to be aware that if the needs come from technology, as an active aisle of human development, it concerns everything and everyone: constitutions, economy, money, cultures, sovereignty, etc.

We have known and tried to delay its implications, from the very beginning, from Dr. Lessig’s famous "Code is law": "In a critical sense, we Americans are not democrats anymore. Cyberspace has shown us this, our passivity in the face of its change confirms this. Both should push us to figure out why."

That we are not democrats anymore is true for all of us, and not only due to our passivity. Networking permits a complex society, i.e. a society where dialogue (two people) and dialectic (two ideas for a synthesis) are replaced by multilogue (many people with many people, extending the familial “polylogue”) and polylectic (many ideas, messages, and information collapsing together). We have entered into polycracy.

This step ahead is necessary

And, remember, the top layer of our global polycratic process has no dedicated structure or doctrine.

All this is because architectures lead us. Richard Fuller said “In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete”: this is why RFC 6852 is adequate in documenting a new paradigm for the making of an architecture. This is also why it now has to be completed and given a framework for telling the way our new architectures' esthetics are to be decided. This way we will be able to agree on the ethics to respect in order to technically best implement the consensually desired esthetics. In this process, the role of the multiple stakeholders (people, users, politicians, lawyers, strategists) is not to replace the engineers in designing their machines but rather to inform them of their consensual requirements and guidance.

You will find all the documentation on this appeal and the related debate at http://architf.org.

jfc From jefsey@jefsey.com Sat Jul 13 16:40:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1602621F9EE1 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:40:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.681 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.681 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.140, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id au8N2J3UvSZU for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491BE21F9EB8 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lns-c10k03-v-62-35-238-138.dsl.sta.abo.bbox.fr ([62.35.238.138]:53860 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Uy9QT-0000aD-A6; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:40:30 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 01:40:26 +0200 To: Russ Housley From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <8A61E0ED-98CF-4B1C-A1AB-A7B6321B646A@vigilsec.com> References: <20130708233440.352C0F2408A@odin.smetech.net> <227821B4-3DA1-4EE1-9B37-23B929CB3D1E@vigilsec.com> <20130709152446.D88FFF2408C@odin.smetech.net> <8A61E0ED-98CF-4B1C-A1AB-A7B6321B646A@vigilsec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20130713234031.491BE21F9EB8@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: IAB IAB , iucg Subject: Re: [iucg] RFC 6852 appeal X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:40:37 -0000

At 20:52 10/07/2013, Russ Housley wrote:

JFC:
I have read your appeal, and I am writing for clarification.

The decision you are appealing:

This appeal concerns RFC 6852. You do not object to any of the
content of the RFC, but you wish it included additional principles.

Dear Russ,

My position may certainly look ambiguous at first reading. This is because (1) I am appealing against a document of which I adhere to the general principles (2) I try to stay neutral. I only use my own architectural positions/experience in order to exemplify why I cannot adhere to the specific occurrence by the IAB, IETF, W3C, IEEE, ISOC of a more general but missing document.

This is why I do not think that additional principles by the signatories alone are the response I am calling for. The need is for a more general document giving a global framework to this RFC.

You also wish to expand the organizations that "sign on" to the
principles.

I target a unique digital global-commons/ecosystem "concordance" framework. It is to be documented by a multistakeholders' multiconsensus, i.e. a consensus among consensuses. There are currently two of these consensuses being documented:

- the WSIS international consensus
- the RFC 6852 signatories’ consensus.

As per the WSIS, I read RFC 6852 as a private sector architectonical consensus, i.e. a consensus exemplifying the way to build concurring architectures, showing how they can be standardized in harmony, documented as compatible, and a mutual value-adding usage be advised.

As per the IETF point of view, I see now that Brian Carpenter was right in keeping the IAB and IETF outside of the WSIS process, because their participants were unprepared.

RFC 6852 now permits us to proceed toward an architectonical multi-consensus that everyone might sign on to or respect as an "architiquette" on “how to co-build the digisphere”.

Your preferred remedy has two points:

(1) Publication of a statement or RFC that expands on RFC 6852,
preferably in conjunction with other organizations and
governments; and

It looks likes:

-       The WSIS was brought by stakeholders who are accustomed to the methods of an ancient world needing to document an evolution.

-       RFC 6852 is brought by some stakeholders having forged together a successful method for a new world and needing to document its foundations.

-       These two worlds need to be merged now and to discover if they are the only existing worlds.

(2) Create an inter-SDO procedure to maintain the RFC 6852
      principles and allow civil society, governments, and
      international organizations to "sign on" to these
      principles.

Roughly, yes.

Please let me know if this brief summary is accurate.

From where you are and as far as I am concerned, yes. From my own area of interest (efficient stability through the best usability for all – i.e. that everything “works better" everywhere), I perceive and try to address some of the constraints that I see ahead.

(1). I think that the correct plane is normative,

Normative means the description of the normality that we have or want. These matters do not belong to the standardization plane, i.e. how to best support and/or take advantage from norms. There is, therefore, an NDO concept to work out.

(2). You have illustrated that IAB is such an NDO that is concerned by the technologies’ normative aspects.

In that area IAB etc. influence the private sector (after RFC 6852), while the ITU represents the regalian domain, and ISO is a good rep for international organizations. Civil Society is not represented while it should, if it exists and we want to reach a stable multi-consensus. There are two consistent but still inefficient attempts to technically represent it: the Internet Governance Forum and my own IUCG experimentation. I diagnose the root of their inefficiency as the same one as the open roots: the people society as such cannot propose and set-up alternative solutions. It uses the individuals' capacities of innovation to validate common normative requirements. If people were to get really motivated to go down to standards, these are another sort of standards ("clauzewitzian remarkable trinity")

(3). So far, the debate has been technological (engineers, international organizations) on one side and political (governments, activists) on the other side.

We have to overcome this situation in reaching for a common understanding of the esthetic that we want for this new world that politicians call the "information society", which we consider more as a "communication world", and I feel it to be "intellition effectiveness", i.e. what do we effectively do with the intelligence that we may mine from the information we communicate or not.

This calls for a normative multilogue to agree upon this esthetic and agree over a practical ethic:

a. multilogue.

Our new world dates from January 21, 1889. This is the day Henri Poincaré received the n-body contest award for the many important ideas that led to the development of chaos theory and what followed in our understanding of the world. WSIS was a monolectic attempt of the "formal forces" born in the past to address it in the Internet area. RFC 6852 is another attempt by the "unformal approaches" we saw emerging during the last half-century.

My appeal is against the risk of leaving people considering these two attempts as a dialectic, possibly leading to a pragmatic synthesis. This would be a dead-end if the situation is polylectic, i.e. with many more stakeholders to consult. (NB: the term “polylogue” I used before for multilogue is actually the parent assisted logos in a family).

b. esthetic.

The WSIS defined its own esthetic as people centered, focusing in the person (Spanish version) and being human oriented as far as machines are concerned (French version). RFC 6852 proposes something more fluid: to fit the market expectations. My own priority would probably be a pragmatic brain oriented effiliency (i.e. balancing efficiency with resiliency) .

c. ethic.

In trying to uncover a multi-consensus over such an esthetic, we will probably agree on a set of ethics to surely attain it.

- on the technology side this should lead to an "ethitechnics": how to design architectures for them to be costly when unethically used and cheap otherwise.
- on the societal side this will probably help in understanding new forms of the social contracts, social network, sovereignties, defense, security, protection, and precaution.
- on the constitutional side this should probably lead to a better understanding of our post-democratic global polycracy.

(4). This is why we need to proceed carefully, by individual initiatives, creating a trend in calling for it, concerting (not coordinating) these initiatives, until the "formal forces" feel they do not dilute in "unformal approaches", and the "unformal approaches" that they do not get regimented by cooperating with "formal forces". And both understand that free spirits may not only be consumers, voters, suspects, or noise but global communities' leading users.

Thank you for your concern.

jfc

From jefsey@jefsey.com Fri Jul 26 07:39:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160AF21F99A1 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:39:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.541 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0g4GeMuBPOqX for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287B321F99A4 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:61737 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1V2jAg-0000vR-BL; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:39:06 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:38:59 +0200 To: IAB Chair From: JFC Morfin Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20130726143907.287B321F99A4@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: IAB IAB , iucg , IUTF Subject: [iucg] follow-up on my RFC 6852 appeal X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:39:13 -0000 Russ,

FYI, I conducted a few debates (in French) over the RFC 6852 appeal.

I. general obsevations

They led me so far to observe some hints of rough consensus on:

1. concerns about the sovereignty concepts: how should they
multinationally articulate among different kinds of relational spaces.

2. parallel between the economy and cyberspace, money and data, value
and information. Same fundamental errors/achievements. Solutions for
one should benefit the other.

3. when faced with architectonic considerations, people more or less
concur that,

- they are common fundamentals for cyberspace with different possible
architectures, the leading ones being Internet (OSI layers 1,2,3,4)
and Internet+ (OSI upper layers + services).

- a common "esthetic" (as a targeted ideal) should be phrased for the
digisphere, i.e. our thinking and living in the world human + bots ecosystem.

- they never thought about it really, as they took the internet
options as the only ones possible and thought that the IAB was in charge.

- RFC 6852 shows that the IAB is not, except for internet
architectural consistency, and that consistency results from a
compromise (no longer an absolute) "agreement [that] can be found
across a range of interests".

- the different ranges of interests should be documented by each
stakeholder, in mutually comprehensible terms. Identifying these terms
is the first purpose of an architectonical debate.

- no one has a real suggestion about preparing and holding such a
debate. It should be "democratic" but everyone fails to explain how it
could actually be held.

- the right thing to target and carry out may not necessarily be
(multi)consensual.

II. My personnal conclusions

My personal, general (convoluted!) feeling is that we are in:

- an “n-bodies” dynamic universe,

- hence in a timed n-logic context,

- where money remains the main metric of reference for ordered exchanges,

- only limited by sovereignty that may legitimately oppose strength
(law) and violence (war).

2.1. fundamental issue.

The points above make something new,
- to integrate in technology,
- calling for an attractor (esthetic),
- and a technical development ethic (ethitechnic).

2.2. way of addressing it

I call “agoric” the confluence of logics that, at the
probabilistically quantified layer that our environment is now daily
rooted in, no longer results in “conclusions” but rather in more or
less stable “emergences”.

I presented in a preceding appeal the systemic topology that I
currently associate with the agoric polycentric space. I must also
note that I observe an apparent slow convergence of most scientists
and sciences over a century that one might reproduce through
artificial life like multiagent systems throughout the networks.

2.3. the internet part

In the virtual cyberspace, of which our mental digisphere has to live
with, the internet is to:

- provide data transport,

- permit informational interoperability,

- and support “body to body” communication.

So far, through the IETF work on the Internet test-bed, we have identified:

- that everything may change (RFC 1958) at any time,

- coopetition among the different n-bodies may result in effillient
(efficient + resilient) synergy, in being stable in sending and open
in receiving (RFC 1122),

- things work if they are simple (RFC 3439),

- hence diversity is dealt with by subsidiarity (RFC 5895).

2.4. Personal bias

I am most probably biased since:

- the “agoric” concerns were at the root of the Tymshare/Tymnet
architecture, technology, and deployment,

- as the communications layers’ pile concept was initiated by Michel
Elie (office mate of Jon Postel), rooted in the 1970s INRIA/CII, in my
local neighborhood,

- my Tymnet’s job was to extend them into services matching the
international reality.

- I further integrated these concepts in my R&D, experimentations, and
operations.

This probably also explains why I am very strict against layer
violations by double constraints affecting the intelligence layers
that I have identified above the ISO model, which are out of the end
to end boundaries (in the fringe to fringe and up to the psy to psy areas).

III. Conclusion?

This means that starting by way of an open, joint effort to explore
the architectonic of what I call polycracy might be worth considering.
For example as an IAB IRTF/IUTF/ITU/ISO/IGF/ISOC etc. oriented
initiative for a coherent digital esthetic and the way to ethically get at it.

For what it is worth.
jfc

From jefsey@jefsey.com Fri Jul 26 11:18:03 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC01321F99F2 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:18:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.374 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.374 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.166, BAYES_50=0.001, FRT_EXPERIENCE=2.333, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zNor-V6F2anf for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C38021F99E3 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lns-c10k03-v-62-35-238-138.dsl.sta.abo.bbox.fr ([62.35.238.138]:52143 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1V2maR-0000qi-7v; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:17:55 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 20:17:48 +0200 To: "comptoir@cafedu.com" From: JFC Morfin Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20130726181756.1C38021F99E3@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: iucg , IUTF Subject: [iucg] [Iutf] follow-up on my RFC 6852 appeal X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:18:03 -0000 Pour information et pour conclure les débats engagés ici (et ailleurs) je viens d'adresser à Russ Housley le mail en annexe.

Je déduis de tout cela qu'il est effectivement maintenant nécessaire de déclencher la mise en opération réelle de l'Internet+ et de documenter le projet Intersem, comme un projet précis porté par une équipe structurée et "automécanisée", et non plus seulement comme des suggestions ouvertes. Il s'agit là de se positionner en action comparable à celle de l'IETF ou W3C en visant un créneau spécifique qui est celui de la société civile et des IMI (initiatives multinationales individuelles) qui correspondent à "l'emploi personnel", artisanat intellectuel, autoentrepreneurs mis à mal par le gouvernement, etc. au niveau d'utilisations pilotes, c’est-à-dire d'usagers, d'association, de groupes de cybersécurité/services mutuels capables de faire connaître leur solution, remonter de l'expérience et provoquer les gouvernements via la presse pour arriver à une concertation architectonique sur le fondamental de notre société du XXIe.

Pour l'instant, je vais y réfléchir le temps du repos (santé) et des vacances (administratif). Je sonderai peut-être avec un pré-projet. Il sera placé sous le chapeau d'Intlnet : l'association que j'ai créée en août 1978 pour conduire ce type d'opération au service de nos multiples espaces relationnels (desservis par les réseaux du réseau des réseaux).

jfc

------------------------------------------------------

Russ,

FYI, I conducted a few debates (in French) over the RFC 6852 appeal.

I. general obsevations

They led me so far to observe some hints of rough consensus on:

1. concerns about the sovereignty concepts: how should they
multinationally articulate among different kinds of relational spaces.

2. parallel between the economy and cyberspace, money and data, value
and information. Same fundamental errors/achievements. Solutions for
one should benefit the other.

3. when faced with architectonic considerations, people more or less
concur that,

- they are common fundamentals for cyberspace with different possible
architectures, the leading ones being Internet (OSI layers 1,2,3,4)
and Internet+ (OSI upper layers + services).

- a common "esthetic" (as a targeted ideal) should be phrased for the
digisphere, i.e. our thinking and living in the world human + bots ecosystem.

- they never thought about it really, as they took the internet
options as the only ones possible and thought that the IAB was in charge.

- RFC 6852 shows that the IAB is not, except for internet
architectural consistency, and that consistency results from a
compromise (no longer an absolute) "agreement [that] can be found
across a range of interests".

- the different ranges of interests should be documented by each
stakeholder, in mutually comprehensible terms. Identifying these terms
is the first purpose of an architectonical debate.

- no one has a real suggestion about preparing and holding such a
debate. It should be "democratic" but everyone fails to explain how it
could actually be held.

- the right thing to target and carry out may not necessarily be
(multi)consensual.

II. My personnal conclusions

My personal, general (convoluted!) feeling is that we are in:

- an “n-bodies” dynamic universe,

- hence in a timed n-logic context,

- where money remains the main metric of reference for ordered exchanges,

- only limited by sovereignty that may legitimately oppose strength
(law) and violence (war).

2.1. fundamental issue.

The points above make something new,
- to integrate in technology,
- calling for an attractor (esthetic),
- and a technical development ethic (ethitechnic).

2.2. way of addressing it

I call “agoric” the confluence of logics that, at the
probabilistically quantified layer that our environment is now daily
rooted in, no longer results in “conclusions” but rather in more or
less stable “emergences”.

I presented in a preceding appeal the systemic topology that I
currently associate with the agoric polycentric space. I must also
note that I observe an apparent slow convergence of most scientists
and sciences over a century that one might reproduce through
artificial life like multiagent systems throughout the networks.

2.3. the internet part

In the virtual cyberspace, of which our mental digisphere has to live
with, the internet is to:

- provide data transport,

- permit informational interoperability,

- and support “body to body” communication.

So far, through the IETF work on the Internet test-bed, we have identified:

- that everything may change (RFC 1958) at any time,

- coopetition among the different n-bodies may result in effillient
(efficient + resilient) synergy, in being stable in sending and open
in receiving (RFC 1122),

- things work if they are simple (RFC 3439),

- hence diversity is dealt with by subsidiarity (RFC 5895).

2.4. Personal bias

I am most probably biased since:

- the “agoric” concerns were at the root of the Tymshare/Tymnet
architecture, technology, and deployment,

- as the communications layers’ pile concept was initiated by Michel
Elie (office mate of Jon Postel), rooted in the 1970s INRIA/CII, in my
local neighborhood,

- my Tymnet’s job was to extend them into services matching the
international reality.

- I further integrated these concepts in my R&D, experimentations, and
operations.

This probably also explains why I am very strict against layer
violations by double constraints affecting the intelligence layers
that I have identified above the ISO model, which are out of the end
to end boundaries (in the fringe to fringe and up to the psy to psy areas).

III. Conclusion?

This means that starting by way of an open, joint effort to explore
the architectonic of what I call polycracy might be worth considering.
For example as an IAB IRTF/IUTF/ITU/ISO/IGF/ISOC etc. oriented
initiative for a coherent digital esthetic and the way to ethically get at it.

For what it is worth.
jfc

_______________________________________________
iutf mailing list
iutf@iutf.org
http://iutf.org/mailman/listinfo/iutf_iutf.org
From jefsey@jefsey.com Mon Jul 29 08:19:31 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD01F21F9ECA for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:19:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.881 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.118, BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1jOpPq0Y0vVf for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8148821F9DBA for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lns-c10k03-v-62-35-238-138.dsl.sta.abo.bbox.fr ([62.35.238.138]:54008 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1V3pEJ-0002b2-Vi; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:19:24 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:18:57 +0200 To: Suresh Ramasubramanian , "governance@lists.igcaucus.org" From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com>

<51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> <6C2BFD9F-C70E-40A8-8D16-C50152C990DF@privaterra.org>

Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20130729151925.8148821F9DBA@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: Robert Guerra , iucg@ietf.org Subject: [iucg] Who/what are the "some"? X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:19:31 -0000 At 14:37 29/07/2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >You didn't complete one of those sentences, Monsieur. >"... for some". What / who are those "some"? Hi! Suresh, I fully documented them during the last few says. We are, for a year, in a fundamental transition which concerns the very nature of the Internet. I listed for you my last mails on the matter at http://iucg.org/wiki/IGF.Caucus_July_2013 Have a good reading. jfc