From jefsey@jefsey.com Mon Aug 5 05:16:44 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 60D9721F9DD6 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 05:16:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.132 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.191, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, 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 R2cBrn4qCA4Q for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 05:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC6D21F8B4E for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 05:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:62006 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1V6JiG-0003iZ-Ij; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 05:16:36 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:16:32 +0200 To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org,parminder , iucg@ietf.org From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <51FCBCB6.1070506@itforchange.net> References: <51FCA9D7.6090305@itforchange.net> <51FCBCB6.1070506@itforchange.net> 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: <20130805121638.9EC6D21F8B4E@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: iutf@iutf.org Subject: [iucg] call for an open IGF - was Update from today's MAG call 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, 05 Aug 2013 12:16:44 -0000 At 10:17 03/08/2013, parminder wrote:
Maybe those who are opposed to such a top-down imposition can write to the IGF secretariat and the MAG about it....

Dear Parminder,

How can we practically reconcile "democracy" with the concept of a discussion with a secretariat and an advisory group? The authoritative entity of the IGF is the IGF itself, comprising four stakeholder parties, each with their own culture and governance, to serve the project of a people centered Information Society. This IGF by nature and essence is what each stakeholder class, dynamic coalition, enhanced cooperation, and person brings to it. This is why I prefer to speak of polycracy; a democracy for all the stakeholders in a concerting world based on multi-consensus rather than votes (ex. IETF: "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code").

Due to a thousand years of hysteresis, we continue to pay special attention to the UN and Govs. Remember that the WSIS is all about paying also as much attention to CS and Corporations, along with their own cultures and processes. The Civil Society and Private sector cultures and processes are NOT those of the UN and Govs. We do NOT have to mimic them; otherwise, it will be a disservice to all the stakeholders. We need to be ourselves. RFC 6852 shows how the contribution of the professional Internet and computer areas (Private sector) intends:
- to harness these increasing opportunities today for all the peoples  and for [] inclusive global communit|ies] that were unimaginable only a few years ago.
- and to support their further development and progress (cf. Tunis Agenda).

We have
- (1) to do the same in the Civil Society area.
- (2) to contribute with the other stakeholders and their conclusions (their responses to the Tunis agenda) to make it a joint multistakeholder's move.

IMO, this should help the IGF to be a tool of real use and utility for everyone. It could then probably lead to:
- (1) a yearly meeting that would be called in cooperation with its Secretariat, and advised by the MAG
- (2) an open contribution "Wikigf",
- (3) an "RFC4D editor" - comparable to the IETF RFC editor.
- (4) and a common "nethiquette", as a "BCP4D" striving to respect the WSIS people centered architectonic esthetic, of which the first section would enlarge the meaning of the "Internet" word to the "Multitechnology/multilinguistic Digisphere International Networks". Among others things, such a nethiquette resulting from a de facto global multiconsensus would document and maintain how the Wikigf and RFC4D editor would function.

This certainly is something that a few of us could manage to organize, as it only is a response and continuation of the work of everyone for years.

Best,
jfc
From jefsey@jefsey.com Thu Aug 8 07:04:22 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 3786811E81D1 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 07:04:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.394 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.394 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.147, 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 WdZho9oFoB7u for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 07:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE8D711E81B1 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 07:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:59638 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1V7Qp3-0000MX-1m; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 07:04:13 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 16:04:07 +0200 To: Russ Housley From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: References: <6E5C520D-F79C-45CC-AC74-6E4F67833BE8@iab.org> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B924D4C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <988A872C-CCD7-4353-A85F-FBF200AD3A4B@netapp.com> <51C97AA1.1080603@gmail.com> 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: <20130808140416.AE8D711E81B1@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: Bob Hinden , iucg@ietf.org, iutf@iutf.org Subject: [iucg] further to your response 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: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:04:22 -0000 Dear Russ,

I kept working a little bit (http://architf.org) on the consequences of your stern and neutral response to my appeal regarding RFC 6852 ( http://www.iab.org/appeals/2013-2). One never knows about the positive/negative impact of something in/on the future, so I have no comment. 

I only have now to complete my clarification endeavor in appealing the ISOC BoT against the IAB for disregarding its RFC 2850 mission and not providing guidance on a matter of importance for the Internet community and the JTC1 (/SC38, NWIP 881 - I suppose, I have not yet a copy of the US National Body Contribution). This will permit ISOC to formalize its position and complete the RFC 6852 text as far as the Internet nature and architecture are concerned in the architectonic debate.

I have looked around and I do not find any formal documentation on the ISOC appeal process. Could you, or Bob, help me with that information?

I thank you for this help. I apologize for disrupting your vacation, but I fear possible reglementary delays constraints and an ill timing with the ISOC and ICC strategies for the October 21, 2013 HLLM on the directly related global cyber ethic issues, as my interest is in a positive clarification and not in negative disruption.

Best regards
jfc morfin From housley@vigilsec.com Thu Aug 8 15:28:20 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 C204921F9931 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:28:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.66 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 JQLXKkKfnykY for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:28:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4C911E8151 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:27:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF173F2408B; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:27:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NO1qBDbnp7ZI; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.109] (pool-96-241-154-95.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.154.95]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 184D3F24089; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:27:52 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-37-409180682 From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <20130808140503.F164BF24089@odin.smetech.net> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:27:35 -0400 Message-Id: References: <6E5C520D-F79C-45CC-AC74-6E4F67833BE8@iab.org> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B924D4C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <988A872C-CCD7-4353-A85F-FBF200AD3A4B@netapp.com> <51C97AA1.1080603@gmail.com> <20130808140503.F164BF24089@odin.smetech.net> To: JFC Morfin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: Bob Hinden , iucg@ietf.org, iutf@iutf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] further to your response 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: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:28:20 -0000 --Apple-Mail-37-409180682 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii JFC: No one has ever appealed to the ISOC BoT. I do not think it will help = your case to do so. Rather, as the appeal suggests, I encourage you to = start a dialogue with the IESG and the IAB about the next steps with = OpenStand. That said, RFC 2026 says this about appeals to the ISOC Board of = Trustees: 6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process. Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of Trustees. The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the Trustees' review of the appeal. The Trustees shall review the situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review. The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final with respect to all aspects of the dispute. Russ On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:04 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > Dear Russ, >=20 > I kept working a little bit (http://architf.org) on the consequences = of your stern and neutral response to my appeal regarding RFC 6852 ( = http://www.iab.org/appeals/2013-2). One never knows about the = positive/negative impact of something in/on the future, so I have no = comment. =20 >=20 > I only have now to complete my clarification endeavor in appealing the = ISOC BoT against the IAB for disregarding its RFC 2850 mission and not = providing guidance on a matter of importance for the Internet community = and the JTC1 (/SC38, NWIP 881 - I suppose, I have not yet a copy of the = US National Body Contribution). This will permit ISOC to formalize its = position and complete the RFC 6852 text as far as the Internet nature = and architecture are concerned in the architectonic debate. >=20 > I have looked around and I do not find any formal documentation on the = ISOC appeal process. Could you, or Bob, help me with that information? >=20 > I thank you for this help. I apologize for disrupting your vacation, = but I fear possible reglementary delays constraints and an ill timing = with the ISOC and ICC strategies for the October 21, 2013 HLLM on the = directly related global cyber ethic issues, as my interest is in a = positive clarification and not in negative disruption. >=20 > Best regards > jfc morfin --Apple-Mail-37-409180682 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Dear Russ,

I kept working a little bit (http://architf.org) on the consequences of your stern and neutral response to my appeal regarding RFC 6852 ( http://www.iab.org/appeals/2013-2). One never knows about the positive/negative impact of something in/on the future, so I have no comment. 

I only have now to complete my clarification endeavor in appealing the ISOC BoT against the IAB for disregarding its RFC 2850 mission and not providing guidance on a matter of importance for the Internet community and the JTC1 (/SC38, NWIP 881 - I suppose, I have not yet a copy of the US National Body Contribution). This will permit ISOC to formalize its position and complete the RFC 6852 text as far as the Internet nature = and architecture are concerned in the architectonic debate.

I have looked around and I do not find any formal documentation on the ISOC appeal process. Could you, or Bob, help me with that information?

I thank you for this help. I apologize for disrupting your vacation, but I fear possible reglementary delays constraints and an ill timing with the ISOC and ICC strategies for the October 21, 2013 HLLM on the = directly related global cyber ethic issues, as my interest is in a positive clarification and not in negative disruption.

Best regards
jfc morfin

= --Apple-Mail-37-409180682-- From jefsey@jefsey.com Sat Aug 10 09:43:44 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 0A1F621E80B4 for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:43:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.418 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, 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 5Yw4CjCduvsN for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E1011E80ED for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lns-c10k03-v-62-35-238-138.dsl.sta.abo.bbox.fr ([62.35.238.138]:56624 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1V8C8j-0006oT-Va; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:35:43 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:35:33 +0200 To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org, David Allen , Bertrand de La Chapelle , George Sadowsky From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <38A32B6D-C013-425A-955F-EB1F74529B6F@post.harvard.edu> References: <38A32B6D-C013-425A-955F-EB1F74529B6F@post.harvard.edu> 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: <20130810163551.41E1011E80ED@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: agora@architf.org, Daniel Pimienta , iucg@ietf.org, parminder@itforchange.net, iutf@iutf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" 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, 10 Aug 2013 16:43:45 -0000 Dear Founding Fathers,

I am afraid all this "twisting of the ad hominem words" is a self explanation of the IGC's decline, if there is such a decline (I feel there is a positive evolution: when people express themselves there can only be a democratic trend).

Sorry to be long, but the matter calls for it. I will put this on http://architf.org when it has been reviewed on the copied political, technical, architectural and architectonical CS lists.

My observation is that the debate is only becoming distant from reality ("the appearing passivity of my civil society colleagues. Our proactivity and capacity to resist seemed to have decline so much" as Daniel says - is that an "ad hominem" too?). This being both from the digisphere reality - the way one thinks in our numeric new world - and from its cyberspace reality, the way this world is to be/being physically built.

There is why, at some not too distant point, someone will have to explore and document the Communications Theory (how the philia works) as Shannon did for the information theory (how the data are exchanged). Dominants lost the information that the Internet was for us. We need to communicate the idea again.

This mail is a small contribution to the exploration of such a theory. It is only based on the 2.4 millenaries of experience in rhetoric, logic, and dialectic that we pour out in our e-mailing and "mail-combat sport". The need is to clarify, from IETF experience, some Latin terminology confusion resulting from the intrinsic fuzziness of the English language when compared with the clarity of the Greek, the rigor of the Latin, and the accuracy of the French languages.


What is our personal communications target?

Let us remember that our common, personal target when communicating is to inform, intercomprehend, and convince others. This usually means in our daily life to mutually express reasonable points through dialog. The target is truth or a correct decision. The method is dialectic.

On a mailing list, we are not engaged in a dialog (one side talking with the other) but rather in a multilogue, everyone to everyone process (the word “polylogue” technically applies to the parents-kids or non-peer to peer communication processes). The mode is no longer dialectic and the debate is no longer logic: we are in a polylectic mode and the debate becomes agoric, and hence political. This real-time multi-communication situation was, up to now, reserved to moderated debates of parliaments and chapters or to international diplomacy. It has become common to everyone and its rules have to scale (an attempt of “on-lining” the Robert’s Rules can be found at http://www.rulesonline.com/).


The way an open debate works

This is a rhetoric arena where the target is no longer to be true but rather to be right in order to win more allies or democratic voters. In this arena, one is not "asked" for a response, one is  "opposed" arguments. (Unless you are like me, a voice preaching in Deserto or an unfortunate recruiter for practical help toward pragmatic actions J) .

To an argument you may either respond to the argument itself (“ad rem”) in discussing the "rem", or to the one who raised it (“ad hominem”) in order to defeat him/her on the ground of his/her own logic. The usual refutation by the opponent is "you are wrong" in the "ad rem” case and "you twisted my words" in the "ad hominem" case. With usual continuations, we know well to follow.


How not lose a lost debate?

When one knows that one has lost every other chance to win, the last trick is, according to “the Art of Being Right” of Schopenhauer, to switch from discussing ideas (the adversary’s arguments or logic) to the adversary’s personality (“ad personam”). In the "ad hominem" hypothesis, this is the equivalent to "bad faith" in the "ad rem" hypothesis. However, it may be made less visible and more insidious.

This is a good way to block a winning adversary, but this is also taking a “make-or-break” choice. The risk is that it may be identified for what it is: the response of someone who has no answer. Therefore, the target is to try to make the debate last long enough for Godwin’s law to apply to the adversary’s detriment.

A very usual proceeding against a person exposing what one would not like to discuss is to pretend that a fully technically justified “ad hominem” is actually an unacceptable “ad personam”. This is all the easier in English in that the confusion between the two phrases already belongs to the common language.


Correcting this societal communication bug

Let us get real: the trick above is an old long known one. It has been addressed by the political press in the parliamentary debates or international relations fields. Our problem today is just that this solution does not already scale. But that is comming! May be this is the reason why we claim in Deserto: dominants do not want to lose their word domainance.

I am becoming architectonical again: the fuzzy, agoric development (everything is fuzzy from words, meanings, measurements, utterances, concepts and notions, metaphors, analogies, sorites and chreodes, etc.) and application to semantic facilitation are a necessity for the Intersem (semantic internet) intercomprehension of our mutual visions of reality (feeding our mirror neurons)


How far away ?

NSA and Edward have just made a big effort toward the public awareness of this self-evidence.  We need our individual X-Keyscore to filter the world's daily spam (information being used to kill information, like in a brainwashing) and deliver clean metadata to our personal PRISM, so our intellition-apps may dig into our reality filtered show to discover the syllodata, the "links between the lines". Doug Engelbart brought us hyperlinks, we now need hypermeaning smartlinks digged by our own logics, not merchandized as semantic web constructs.

It will actually help us a lot when our mails will be “AI-nnotated” by our personal “Auxillary Intelligence” mail agent  with “AR” (ad rem), “AH” (ad hominem), or “AP” (ad personam) mentions and indications like the ones that you can already read, as I said, in the political press about parliamentary debates or international relations : “the author lobbies for this or that position, is actually influenced by the previous mail or decision of Mr./Ms. So-and-so, is an employee of this Group, a member of that Ministry or a Trustee of these NGOs, his/her national interests on the matter are … etc. plus a link to his/her [bio-meta-banking] BMB data”.

How far are we from this? I used "world spam" for the information clutter. Because we all use for years now bayesian probabilities to filter spam based on the text content. What we are discussing is filtering and annotating based on the meaning. X-Keyscore is just a prototype.


Daniel's dogs or JEDI's ?

At 17:10 10/08/2013, Daniel Pimienta wrote:
Imagine a long road heading to a big tower of dollars, not so far away in the perspective. Imagine a caravan named ICANN. Imagine a bunch of dogs marked IGF which are barking between them and around the caravan. Imagine the caravan does not care at all and keep passing towards the big money...
We can also use the image with US government in the caravan and PRISM at the end of the road.

This is metaphore is good and exact. However, I still prefer this "ad personam":

At 16:00 01/12/2009, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Nobody is trying to make domain name labels into language (well, maybe Jefsey's disciples are, but leave that aside), but we have to be realistic and understand that

This "that" (the "Jefsey's disciples" in this odd sentence of the Chair of the DNS WG), proudly kept the name as "JEDIs" and eventually won the day for linguistic diversity, made subsidiarity an digital architectonic principle (RFC 5895 for IDNA2008) and got the IUCG@IETF mailing list created. No need to bark, just disregard those who do not care about us. Let not forget that they need us.

Nobody governs the internet, except those who want it.

jfc


At 16:24 10/08/2013, David Allen wrote:
There is a saying from the Christian Bible, in its Old Testament:
"Don't worry about the mote in my eye, until you have dealt with the timber in yours."

[direction of the original reversed and then rendered in current argot, but with some King James version vocabulary ...]
First of all:  I too am aghast at the relative decline / demise, of the IGC list.  What a waste, and a great shame.

I lend my voice, most pointedly, to see a turnaround.
But.

To imagine that the problem is with one person (the mote), is to ignore massively the the timber also there.
Oh my goodness.

To be clear:  Just what is 'ad hominem'?  In my too-extended, if personal and individual, travels and travails with 'discussion spaces':  Ad hominem is entirely straightforward, not requiring detailed enumeration.

Ad hominem - the prohibition against it - can be put most simply:  _Never_ discuss the persons discussing; never inject those persons into the argumentation.  Always, and only, discuss ideas, their logic, and supporting or dissenting evidence.

Ad hominem is the introduction of talk _about the people talking_.  That is proscribed.  Period.  ... and your mileage may vary.

(Yes, sometimes it is necessary to talk about bad behavior.  Indeed, as we are doing here.  That is a 'reserved case.'  Then space is set aside specifically for the purpose.  Ideas are not the subject, rather the behavior being questioned is the subject.)

To imagine that the problem, of introducing discussion of those discussing, is the province of one person, of Parminder - to imagine that is utterly not supported by the record.  Found hereon, in the archives.  Massively, and most sadly.

Quite regularly, there is innuendo and outright slander.  Then.  Some / a few / one, find it necessary to respond to very many of the list posts - seemingly to virtually all the threads.  (Though probably that is an overstatement, borne of weariness, on seeing it ...)  The brew, of personal nastiness together with overflowing intervention on the airwaves, creates - predictably - a toxic discussion space.  Useful only to those spewing.  And damning the IGC name.  Not to mention the ability to get anything done.


A 'new day' is required, to see any prospect or future.  But '_all sides_' have to adopt that new day, with faithful adherence to the proscription against discussing the people discussing.  That is the only prospect for a resurrection.

To imagine that Parminder is somehow the root of this is risible.  (And disrespectful of the rest of us, who have eyes and can see.)

Only if all the folks responsible are noted and join a new day is there any prospect.  Even then, it would take some time for a new culture to be trusted.


To move from the proscribed, to the prescribed - to the positive, over the negative:  So, what is the main thrust of a quality, productive discussion space?  It is even-handedness, in a word.  A certain 'neutrality' with respect to judgment.  So that all sides, regardless of position, may be heard and taken account.

What is the point, in my text here?  Evenhandedness, in assessment of the facts, of the history.

Only if there is honest and complete description of the problem - and those who have been part of it - is there even the beginning of prospect for a better day.


David


On Aug 9, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:

Parminder,

I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for exactly the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the people who were at the origin of the creation of this very list and caucus to empower civil society, I am extremely saddened by the way it is currently evolving and indeed becoming irrelevant.

I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. You wrote: "Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's words in order to score political points"".

I would like to differ. "You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia) because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific argument of yours. It is rather a judgement about your behavior, about whether you display (or not) the necessary fairness in representing somebody else's position.

To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for instance: "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this must not be true". However, if someone says A and another person says: "this person said B and therefore this person is wrong and should be condemned", this IS twisting people's words.  In this case, you are basically saying: Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she supports it. This is putting words in somebody else's mouth. 

To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem attack a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it or ask yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible if you did not yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's comments just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to certain types of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of civil society purity, etc...

This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and actually weakening its influence in the global debate.

I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree with them and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming one of the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. There are moments when one must call a spade a spade. I wish the co-coordinators of this list had called your attitude to accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound debate.

This is below you. You have more to contribute. 

Respectfully still.

Bertrand
 




On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder < parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote:

ad hominem comment

(to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos -
i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and we could all get back to rational calm conversations)
an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant.
It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully.
I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list.


Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad hominem. Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a discussion, someone attacks a person's character or personal traits, instead of, and with a view to undermine, her/ his argument.  You are making a specious distinction above that  does not hold. In middle of a discussion, personal attacks are almost always made - certainly in conditions like of this list, where people otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus no particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's argument.
On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an allegation and an ad hominem attack.
 Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's email to me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. (Allegations themselves could become quite serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc, whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.)
, Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's words in order to score political points". That is attacking someone in terms of ones character and personal traits, and as in this case, obviously to distract from the argument made - which in this case what that Anriette seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the Indonesian document, which I said was problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my view. Nothing personal here.

For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense.
Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying, but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong way I will get beat up for it.
One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just so mean.
(I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants)
Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent.
Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list for fear of starting a flame war.
Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm to pass.


BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves tends towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often said such things about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather than anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove my claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point out the precise language in the current exchange over the last few days that you find problematic in my emails, that is something other than a critique of someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go back further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are a very good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even respond, I  just want it to out for everyone to see,  rather that your be subject to your insinuations.

Someone/everyone, please stop the venom.
It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant.


I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which I am ready to enter a discussion about.

When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the outrageousness of a few individuals.


Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not people, never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that there enough degree of difference in views on this list that at times one side and at other times the other  side will feel strongly about things.) But, never against any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly subjected to. Again, I am open to be given an instance to prove my statement wrong. As for personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's email, even your reference above of not responding to me with the fear of starting a flame war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one, given the normal standards.
(Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and positions of a good part of  civil society involved in IG space - often dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power structures, which I do often voice, which I understand may not go well with some people. But I always voice it in a collective structural manner and never directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This is the view I have - and I consider it very important in the current global circumstances -  and I cannot desist from offering when the occasion so demands.)

The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many.


Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to examined.... That is always the million dollar democratic question!
parminder


please stop
Note to coordinators.  I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive being kicked of the list would bring great relief.
I have heard others say similar things.
And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass.
avri





____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance@lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




--
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy ( www.internetjurisdiction.net)
Member, ICANN Board of Directors
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance@lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance@lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
From jefsey@jefsey.com Thu Aug 15 16:07:32 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 B13AD11E821F for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 16:07:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.341 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.341 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, 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 esIpHjbBylGh for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 16:07:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 887B211E81A5 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 16:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:64959 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VA6dV-0004aW-4z; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 16:07:22 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 01:07:13 +0200 To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org, Bertrand de La Chapelle , "governance@lists.igcaucus.org" , Daniel Pimienta , Norbert Bollow , Anriette Esterhuysen , Garth Graham From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: References: <91EDBFFE-1228-4ECA-AAFC-C448E873D8CF@gmail.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: <20130815230725.887B211E81A5@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 01:26:20 -0700 Cc: agora@architf.org, iucg@ietf.org, iutf@iutf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" 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: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 23:07:32 -0000 Dear Anriette, Bertrand, Daniel, Norbert, and Garth,

This thread has become very interesting and "pre-fundamental". This mail tries to synthetize our various inputs into a coherent evaluation/proposition. Sorry for it to make a long mail, but this is due to your different valuable contributions and their articulation.


At 12:31 14/08/2013, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
Boy, do I like a good controversy: it is the only way to have all sides of an issue, to think deeply, to be forced to reevaluate your own assumptions and prejudices, to potentially reframe a debate (as we are doing here) and move towards a solution. This is what Parliaments were established for: light through debate.

Also for voted upon decisions. And before that, to votes on the way to vote decisions.


The IGC Charter says:
The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes.
It also says:
The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes.
From this I understand that people want to talk in a forum about the way to proceed with Enhanced Cooperations, and that the role of the IGC is to provide such a forum, i.e. a mutual help point of entry into the IGF for civil society members in order to enhance the cooperation as regards what it may bring to the Internet utilization process.


ICANN is complex machinery and still a laboratory of multi-stakeholder governance. Issues like the risk of capture(s) by one constituency or another, the tension between a corporate vs. a regulatory role, or how to ensure the defense of the global public interest, just to name a few, are necessary, substantial debates. We need to have them.

ICANN is also a complicated enhanced cooperation machinery prototype, experimenting a practical way to balance the four reference poles of a global governance under the leading influence of a national unballancing tutor. We needed the tutor; we have to get rid of the unballance, but when/how?


Actually, the launch of the new gTLD program will require a deep examination of its impact on the structures and processes of ICANN. Whether we call it ICANN 3.0 or not does not matter. What will be needed is engagement in the discussion that will necessarily take place in the coming years.
 
The vTLD (vanity TLD) program is not coherent with the openness of the naming space that we established in 1978 and globally consensually agreed on in 1984 (RFC 920) by Jon Postel, the IETF documented in RFCs, Vint Cerf confirmed in 2000, and IDNA2008 RFCs, and what ICANN pleads for in its ICP3 policy. We all need the multinational, multilingual, multiledger, multilayer digital name space (ML-DNS) to be stable and well behaved.

This is why we welcome the current technical respite that we currently have, thanks to China/i-DNs' sense of responsibilities and precaution (I am still looking for an appropriate modern word for the greek "philia"). However, I am afraid ICANN is not suitably taking advantage of this period, which could come to a close in the year to come (due to software and architectonic progress and evolutions). This is why I fear that the "discussion that will necessarily take place in the coming years" will turn out to be more of a cyberwar leading to an uncertain eventual negentropy and in the meanwhile to real and possibly economically devastating entropy.


At 14:43 14/08/2013, Daniel Pimienta wrote:
May be we should consider either create a new forum inviting many players who are active in our field (and doing advocacy on their own) or simply revive the existing Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space <plenary@wsis-cs.org> which should have been the appropriate place for that purpose.

In the multi-stakeholder game (nothing pejorative in that word, I use it in the mathematical sense of game theory) the other groups (governments and private sector) have their own mechanism of coordination outside where we are not present and this is perfectly fair. Civil society also needs to be better coordinated in the inner circle and at this time we lack such mechanism. In game theory the winner is the one which strategy is unknown to the other players: we have implicitly accepted to discuss publically our strategy here and this is not good for our chance of pushing our consensuated visions.

My proposition and action is based on the same analysis and on the observation of the three other groups.

1. International organizations are proceeding on the language plane. Norbert reported it for the "Cloud", but this is true in other domains. Their role is a global concordance for compatibility, interoperations, and interintelligibility. The problem raised by the lack of civil society cooperation in their normative effort is that their vocabulary and its underlying concepts will result in a biased by solutions pact to the detriment of use.

2. Governments are proceeding through the ITU normative forum and the global treaty on telecommunications. With a well-organized debate, meeting, and concluding pact.

3. The private sector also reached a paradigmatically normative pact and an organization (named "OpenStand" - http://open-stand.org) embodied through RFC 6852 that associates the private stakeholders around ISOC (network engineering), W3C (business proposition) and IEEE (computer engineering).

4. For the time being, ICANN stays in between Governments due to its de facto affiliation with the US Government and intergovernmental philia, and its self-sustenance protection policy. This teaches us a lot, but we cannot copy this model at this stage by lack of budgetary sources or in the fear to unsettle the cyberspace.

Civil society must organize itself in taking advantage from these experiments. This means that we must take control of a key something that we can master with a heterarchic and fuzzy management through truly enhanced cooperation where we will propose Govs, Intl.orgs, and Corps to join us.

- Governments have sovereignty and power - they use treaties.
- Private sector has standards and money - they have named their pact  “OpenStand”.
- Intl.orgs have documentation and ties - they call these “norms”.
- We have information and use - I call our capability in that are “OpenUse” when dealing with OpenStand chairs. This is for this OpenUse approach ( http://openuse.org) that  I call for help after having established an OpenUse technical liaison with the IETF through IUCG@IETF.


At 15:22 14/08/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:
this would be a joint NomCom of civil society as a whole: Members of all the various civil society organizations and networks would be invited to volunteer for the NomCom, and a reasonably sized group from among these volunteers would be randomly selected to form the NomCom. The NomCom would constitute itself (it particular the NomCom chair would be elected by the randomly selected members of the NomCom). For each selection task within the remit of the NomCom, the NomCom would publish a call for expressions of interest and then selecting a good civil society representative or group of representatives (the NomCom members themselves being not eligible).

+1. A CSnomcom is just a common service that is provided to the organization of a group. If several organizations wish - for efficiency sake - to be represented by a unique person, this is their choice. If this choice turns out to be beneficial, next time others will join.


Obviously all of the steering groups etc. of these networks must be invited to participate in the discussions around creating a Joint Civil Society NomCom mechanism, or other credible mechanism that could serve the same purpose.

I however don't think that it is appropriate to restrict these discussions only to people who are on some steering group. Therefore I'd like to broadly circulate a call for expressions of interest for participation in these discussions, in which everyone who is
(1) experienced as a civil society participant in Internet governance debates, and is
(2) clearly primarily participating as a civil society person, with reasonable independence from industry and government interests is invited to also participate in these discussions on the basis of a simple expression of interest.

+1. Just a remark: the term "dynamic coalition" has been coined not to be specific to any form of coalition and organization by individuals or groups. This should be respected as there are also other forms of articulated relational spaces than the common steered networks formula.


Acknowledgement: This initiative is significantly inspired by Thomas Lowenhaupt's suggestion of a while back to create a Joint Board for selection tasks.

The process might be as touchy as the MAG selection process... But it could start small and grow by positive reputation.


At 16:47 14/08/2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
Response from the Indonesian representative to my question made during the MAG meeting about this high-level ministerial event is as follows:

I note that the proposition was a "high level leaders meeting" and it then becomes a “high level ministerial event”. Therefore, it means it is hosted by governments. However, the terminology has not been adapted to a partly claimed equal footing with business sector and civil society.


- Will start off with statements from each of the ministers present
- This is followed by statements from leaders from business and CS

I think it is time that we introduce a question about what a leader is in the Internet Governance and for us to introduce the concept of "NIL" Meetings. The NILs being the “Network influent level”. Those who are denied to talk, and who can only do and pay.


if we want the IGF to become more outcome oriented.. don't we want ALL outcomes from IGF-linked processes to be reflected.. or should that apply only to events that are formally part of the main IGF? But high-level protocol is a powerful force, and not one that combines easily with interactive dialogue.

If we want interactive dialog among people who are not used to it, it is up to us to organize it and make them participate in becoming the common information media both in documenting their conclusions and in publicly questioning them about the points they purposely or unwittingly ignore, challenging these conclusions with those of other stakeholders, including ours. They talk, we broadcast, archive, document. What realy counts is not their rules, technology, agreements and norms but our intelligent use of them and our best purchases and practices.

This is the OpenUse attitude that I propose we all support .

Now, let me finish with mentioning what you should all keep in mind. As a typical representative of the non-funded civil society members, I see the IGF as split into two: the TLLMand the others. The TLLM are the T&L level members who can be invited (or participate in IETF or ISO meetings). I must acknowledge that I am not very interested in TLLM participation in HLLMs (T&L level members in High-Leader Level Meetings). The cost of the T&L to Bali in order to attend the ethics alibi meeting would permit Free Research and Development High Competence Level Members of civil society to significantly upgrade the cyberspace (may I just remind everyone that today’s Internet cyberspace has some analogy with the deck of the SST(itanic)).


At 00:20 15/08/2013, Garth Graham wrote:
On the one hand, the stewards of the uses of ICTs for community development recognized that WSIS would (as it did) fail to grasp the nature of how societies and their technologies co-evolve.  They stayed away from WSIS. 

On the other hand, the agencies that saw community networking as a means to the end of human rights, rather than an end in itself, trampled the stewards of community use into the dust as they stampeded towards the WSIS trough of resources.  In large part, WSIS killed GCNP.
 
I believe the nature of digital economy and society is revealed most strongly through the emergent patterns of community online and daily life online.  That means the best way to evolve the Internet Governance Ecosystem remains local, not global.  It means the conscious neglect of the experience of the stewards of the uses of ICTs for community development inherent in those two examples was a mistake.
 
Those stewards have not gone away.  Every increase in bandwidth, every decrease in bandwidth cost, every effort to locate control of Internet access in the hands of community, increases their interstitial strength and numbers.  They are the early adopters of the phase change in governance we are now experiencing, away from closed systems of control and towards open complex adaptive systems that learn.  Some nation states, particularly those that recognize the importance of digital inclusion, acknowledge their existence better than others.  But they are clearly not players who are active in our field, if that field or space is defined as civil society.

This analysis sounds perfect to me, except on my one key point: what the French word “concertation” or the old Greek word “philia” imply: may be the portmanteau “coopetition” in English. This is the key of our complex world: we are bound together, so if something is truly good/bad for one it is holistically good/bad for all, all the way to the whole universe (this is what a fractal universe means).

Nothing new under the sun: we know what it implies. “Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ” (Aristotle). The 19th century mistake led to our paying for creating the sole financial profit dedicated “Homo economicus”.

This societality also means that our human decision margin in order to influence complexity is slim.  Therefore, our current time’s job is neither to choose between the tide of the technological innovation and the wind of the societal evolution nor to decide on a route for others, but to provide shipping (States, Corporations, Organizations, and people in a people centered society) with navigational help permitting one to go where one wants – otherwise, we will all sinkin the cybertempest. Among these tools there are the WSIS, IGF, RFCs, best practices, dynamic coalitions, enhanced cooperations, multistakeholderism, e-sovereignty, e-empowerments, Internet architecture, etc.etc.  All of these comprise the digital architectonic area. 


I believe that there has been a total breakdown of public trust in the structural capacity of a triumvirate of government, business and civil society to sustain a social contract.

Correct, in the cyberspace, at the speed we are going, we need a cyber code, radars, adequate charts and referent frames, navigational aids, etc. and mutual respect and civil friendship from others. This is like in a car or on an airplane.


Changing the concept of organization to self-organization will scale fractally towards planetary responses that are sensible to anyone at any level, without the need for the creation of monolithic and therefore very dangerous global institutions

Garth, this is exactly what the WSIS did and what we should do. But we read it first with our old glasses. Like the IETF did, and still partly does with some RFCs. The RFC does not change, nor does the source code, but the architectural or even architectonical perspective adapts.  We want to conduct fractality instead of influencing it. This is the error. We want to rule the internet, instead of reaping the best advantage from it. This cannot work: this is a layer violation. Too many unordered parameters and interlinks. We have to learn.

The problem with self-organization is that if you cannot moderate it through adequate auto-catalysis, it then becomes critical. Self-organization criticality (SOC) means that we humans do not scale to the new level of complexity that we have reached. Then, the world takes over (its automatic pilot is sometimes rude, as we experimented with WWII or how we are currently doing with the global financial crisis). In some cases, however, we can keep control, as seen during the Cold War.

How did we make it? Probably because we learned and were precautious, i.e. we prevented the major conflict ahead of time before having to fight it. This is what is called counterwar.(i.e. to engage preemptive low cost actions now, against further higher cost war – along the principle of precaution). This is (IMHO) the plural attempts to excellence advocated by Daniel. Defusing criticality in advance through intelligent self-organization autocatalytic solutions (trying to adapt Ulanowicz to the digital ecosystem, or an interesting paper of Barry McMullin http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~alife/bmcm9901/html-multi/)


At 04:00 15/08/2013, Daniel Pimienta wrote:
You ask me which is better. I always have been reluctant to see the development work area in terms of disjunctive alternatives; either you do telecenter or not, either you do community work or not, either you are in open source or not, either you are in the local or not, etc...  I think the plurality and diversity of approaches is valid and the point is to reach excellence in each one. The challenge is how to articulate somehow those different approaches and here the results are often frustrating (one of the reason is the human tendency to consider own approach as the only valid). In spite the WSIS civil society process was not capable to integrate all the required diversity (and you are correct to remind us that), on my experience, it has been quite a successful effort in terms of articulation and my frustration is that we have lost this momentum and I wish we could regain it during times where civil society influence has been decreasing while governments and some big players from private sector decide our cyberfuture in a way I personally do not feel comfortable.

Yes. I suggest we have to consider two things here:

1. the WSIS was correct in identifying 4 poles (Govs, CS, Business, and Intl.orgs). What is wrong is our frequent replacement of Intl.orgs by the Technical and Academic Community in our schemas. For two reasons: (1) there are lead users, searchers, and engineers in each stakeholder category (ARPA to start with is a governmental R&D, and OpenResearch is Civil Society oriented) and (2) this artificially increases the power of Govs instead of reducing it. International organizations are temper sovereignties, sometimes for good and sometimes for the worse.

2. We are discussing the data level at the data level. In other words, we are considering what transports and stores data (Internet, cloud), how it is organized and how it impacts our lives. However, we do not consider the fundamental power which is in metadata (the data on data) and in the metaorganization of these metadata. Where the reality, i.e. the true power, i.e. the syllodata (the data between the data), and the way to support them is through communication. What counts first is the way the real world actually IS, and then we can consider how we want to complement it (architectonic) along prefundemantal considerations, then how we will structure this complement (architecture), then the way we can implement it (engineering), the way we can intelligently organize our use of this complement, and then - and only then - the open and neutral best ways that users can utilize and enjoy the result for their development.

jfc
http://openuse.org






 From jefsey@jefsey.com Mon Aug 19 18:15:13 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 C3C4A11E8180 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:15:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.941 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.941 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.600, 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 29ncv0-E1J7K for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AAA611E8172 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:49276 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VBaXF-0005h0-3L; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:15:01 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 03:14:56 +0200 To: Russ Housley 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: <20130820011506.3AAA611E8172@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: bob.hinden@gmail.com, iucg@ietf.org, iutf@iutf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] further to your response 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: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 01:15:15 -0000 At 00:27 09/08/2013, Russ Housley wrote:
JFC:
No one has ever appealed to the ISOC BoT.  I do not think it will help your case to do so.  Rather, as the appeal suggests, I encourage you to start a dialogue with the IESG and the IAB about the next steps with OpenStand.

Dear Russ,
I thank you for this. And I will certainly engage such a dialog that progressively clarifies, in my mind, as being between the "OpenStand" and an "OpenUse" points of view:
 
- OpenStand being (IP) architecture – software – standards and end to end interoperability oriented.
- OpenUse being architectonic (the whole context and the comparative rationales [deeper layers than politics and strategies] of different architectures being used in building a world digital ecosystem - ex. RINA as an example) – at least brainware and all the potential complements/alternatives to IP – specifications and fringe to fringe interintelligibility oriented.

That said, RFC 2026 says this about appeals to the ISOC Board of Trustees:
6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure

   Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures
   themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are
   claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the
   rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process.
   Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of
   Trustees.  The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge
   such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of
   acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the
   Trustees' review of the appeal.  The Trustees shall review the
   situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on
   the outcome of its review.

   The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final
   with respect to all aspects of the dispute.

I will then be the first one...

My concern is about the time frame (must I appeal within two months [before Sept 17]?). The mail address of Bob Hinden I used does not seem to work. If this mail does not go through (this is why I use an ack) I will contact ISOC and ask for the way in which I can reach him. It is up to him I suppose to organize and inform me how to proceed.

jfc

----

PS. Bob, I suppose I need to better explain at this stage what I am looking for in appealing ISOC and why.

IMHO, both OpenStand and OpenUse are complementary but cannot be considered as different complete layers of the architectonic pile we start discerning, and they are at different development stages and result from what I see as a (natural and necessary at this stage of the digital development) societal fork between people and business centered legitimate and complementary missions.

OpenStand is a gathering of five, well-established historic bodies, plus followers which also are established operations. OpenUse is a concept in limbo that is still underlying everwhere and pushed by a few people like me with their own agenda (mine being IUse [intelligent use] and the future Intersem [semiotic internet and intercomprehension facilitation] - others' being cyberdefense, e-sovereignty or different forms of “relational spaces” or political control).

I/we all need this to clarifies in the open (you chose "OpenStand" as a name). Therefore, my current target is threefold:

1. to make OpenStand speak as a single organized group, through the appeal procedure that is (so far) its only established/documented united interface with the rest of us.

2. to oblige OpenStand to speak for the future; thus far it has spoken for the past (analyzing its de facto paradigm). How you intend to articulate your mission toward the global community markets and your "adequate and sufficient protection of the rights of all parties in a fair and open end to end Internet Standards Process".  We are not anymore in a space-time world, but in a four dimensions business and political world with counterwar stakes (what I do not do or permit today may permit an inflexion in norms/standards that will cost all of us or a stakeholder category a lot “sometimes” – this sometimes being to be more and more consistently thought and dealt with as any other current “somewhere”). I experimented and won that kind of pseudo-symetric warfare in lang-tags and IDNA, an area where Ray Kurzwell tries to maintain the Google-spell. There are other ones ahead, unless we mutually agree to discuss before fighting them.

3. to help OpenUse to identify itself and to be identified by all as a thinking necessity and a debate that is:
    - neither an OpenStand alternative standardization process,
    - nor an end-user society alternative to ISOC
    - nor a people's claim for e-sovereignty alternative to the UN and Govs,
    - nor an alternative to ISO as a maintainer of the global normative concordance.

The understanding of the digisphere and cyberspace has changed and is bound to keep evolving. This means that the ISOC architectural culture is not only going to adapt, but also to expand to new architectures, standards, uses, practices, and usages, and confront other architectures.

Thus far,

1. Good point: OpenStand corresponds to the removal of the IAB from its de facto architectonic final arbitration. This means that:
    - (a) there is no attempt whatsoever to keep IP as a “radical monopoly” (as per Ivan Illitch) and
    - (b) there is a need for the creation of an independent architectonic review board to help the interachitectural dialog that you have suggested to me in order to start with the IESG and IAB.
    In ths appeal, I am only JFC Morfin. I need help and positive critiques to update the IUCG charter if it still is a good proposition and deploy the IUTF.

2. Good point: two of the three RFC 2026 OpenStand organizations have already answered this clarification need positively. This means that:
    - (a) my OpenUse appeals initiative do not interfere with the IETF and IAB areas of responsibilities,
    - (b) we should dialog together. Perfect, we all need the position of the third (ISOC) one.

3. Question mark: the structured appeal system ensuring that OpenStand has technological coherence in the end to end area:
    - (1) has never been tested yet (I will be the first one)
    - (2) includes:
       - neither the W3C (I architecturally consider it deals with an OSI layer 6 partial patch)
       - nor the new OpenStand signatories and the cooperation with the ITU.
       Does that mean that they are of non fundamental importance in the ISOC vision of the technological coherence?  This is something OpenUse would worry about as a fringe to fringe user on top of end to end.
    - (3) needs some clarification, as the IAB has not in its response to my appeal fully played (IMHO) its RFC 2870 role of adviser/guide of the network community.

4. Question mark: there is an overlap between:
   - the ISOC traditional relations with end-users and governments,
   - and the self-representation of end-users and IUsers (those having the capacity to change the Internet to suit their own immediate and operational needs) who port OpenUse political (hence diverse and sometimes controversial) concerns.

This is something that we (IUsers) already faced in the case of the “Internet Domain Name Owners” (IDNO) and of @larges. It led to controversy and to the lame ICANN policy and structural situation in the internet governance. An agreement on the role and preservation of ICANN within the Internet Governance should be a target between OpenStand and OpenUse. Also, should OpenUse target an multitechnology/multiuse network of chapters. I was denied my proposition of an ISOC IPv6 Use Chapter.

5. Question mark: an extended architectonic reading of the Internet architecture has resulted from the IDNA2008 RFCs (in particular RFC 5895, implying that the Internet architectural support of diversity [at least in the linguistic diversity case] can be by fringe subsidiarity).
- It enables the simultaneous support of several fringe to fringe architectures over the same (consolidated) end to end architecture.
- For clarity, I call these possible extended value complementary architectures under the generic name of “Internet+”, (my own “interplus” approach is an example implying the use of “plugged layers on the user side”). This possibility has been tested by several, in independent ways and for different services. Cacophony may result from it. This cacophony may lead to Internet type of services hijacks and/or important innovative developments. The OpenUse/OpenStand cooperation that Russ suggests should start there. Not to result in conflicts, IMHO, there is first the need to know where ISOC leans in this dia/multilog (on your both sides, on the intelligent use side, on other more/less comprehensive sides?).

(NB! One can clearly see the ISOC scaling difficulty in this example: the internet has become too large for a single organization to take care of one of its architectural points of view and to represent the users of the other [complementary or not] architectures).


Once this is clarified, the fundamental architectonic questions that could be raised and discussed are:

1. with the IAB/IESG, about “peri-IP” (whatever it may mean and is discussed) end to end architectures and active content fringe to fringe extended network/communications services?

2. with governments, about multinational sovereignties as in the case of Google behaving like a virtual ubiquitous e-State? and network technological neutrality? What about private registry and information system managers (PRISM)

3. with ISO and other NDOs, about the consistency of the general “architectony” (a default semantic frame of reference for the machines) wherein we need to base a new standardization effort at the (intersem) intercomprehension strata (asuperIANA for brains and thought intercomprehension).

4. with everyone interested, a multidisciplinary work on the Theory of Communication we all miss.

5. with everyone the e-colonization of the world (as per the Information Report to the French Senate by Senator Catherine MORIN-DESAILLY, March 20, 2013). You may access the IUCG compilation toward this debate at http://architf.org and the way OpenUse may insert itself in the WSIS international consensus for the Information society ( while OpenStand would look like a private sector led enhanced cooperation. http://iucg.org/wiki/WSISMAP-CARTESMSI).

Best
jfc

Russ


On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:04 AM, JFC Morfin wrote:

Dear Russ,

I kept working a little bit (http://architf.org) on the consequences of your stern and neutral response to my appeal regarding RFC 6852 ( http://www.iab.org/appeals/2013-2). One never knows about the positive/negative impact of something in/on the future, so I have no comment. 

I only have now to complete my clarification endeavor in appealing the ISOC BoT against the IAB for disregarding its RFC 2850 mission and not providing guidance on a matter of importance for the Internet community and the JTC1 (/SC38, NWIP 881 - I suppose, I have not yet a copy of the US National Body Contribution). This will permit ISOC to formalize its position and complete the RFC 6852 text as far as the Internet nature and architecture are concerned in the architectonic debate.

I have looked around and I do not find any formal documentation on the ISOC appeal process. Could you, or Bob, help me with that information?

I thank you for this help. I apologize for disrupting your vacation, but I fear possible reglementary delays constraints and an ill timing with the ISOC and ICC strategies for the October 21, 2013 HLLM on the directly related global cyber ethic issues, as my interest is in a positive clarification and not in negative disruption.

Best regards
jfc morfin
From jefsey@jefsey.com Sat Aug 24 18:12:03 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 677DF11E81BF for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:12:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.313 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.313 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.686, 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 Pi+7t27cIJPY for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:11:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B42F11E81C8 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:50602 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VDOry-0006B0-J9; Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:11:54 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 03:11:48 +0200 To: Bob Hinden ,iab@iab.org, Vint Cerf From: JFC Morfin Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed 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: <20130825011156.7B42F11E81C8@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: iucg@ietf.org, iutf@iutf.org Subject: [iucg] Follow-up on RFC 6852 appeal and on Google Incidents 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: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 01:12:03 -0000 NB. I only use the iab@iab list in order to not get filtered because of the use of too many addresses. ---- Dear Chairs, I am waiting for Bob Hinden's indications concerning the process of the ISOC third phase of my RFC 6852 appeal. I am asked to add a new concern exemplified by the recent unexplained Google difficulties (short interruption of service, no explanation available for the requests of captcha to users [access providers and end users alike]). Due to the size of the Google system, this is also of a general architectural and possibly architectonical concern along RFC 3439 and a part of the dialogue Russ encouraged me to maintain about the next steps with OpenStand. One of the points of this concern of mine (cf. appeals and previous mail) is how OpenStand will ensure an "adequate and sufficient protection of the rights of all parties in a fair and open end to end Internet Standards Process". I might illustrate this through the market oriented need of a quality of use information protocol in case of network neutrality violation (end to end) or service provider (end) instability. The internet is not free. End-users pay: - with their money, the use of the common network resources assumed by the various operators - and with their "microtimes" spent for making the service providers' advertising available to them. When access is interrupted or when a disproportionate overpayment is claimed (time and effort wasted to enter a captcha or waste of time due to the interruption of a legitimate automated interrogation process), they should be compensated at least with an explanation and a microtime credit (no advertising for an equivalent microtime amount). Until RFC 6852, along with RFC 3935, the technology documentation was on a best effort basis for it to work better for all ­ so an internet "disaster" could be considered as an "act of God". Now, the technology is to be documented in the best interest of markets and global communities and, therefore, disasters will be claimed to possibly result from human architectural choices, i.e. "OpenStand acts", grounded on no architectonical certitude or legally/internationally approved consensus. My point is to initiate a debate toward such a consensus in order to be precautionarily formalized. The appeal is, therefore, to call the attention: - of OpenStand on the necessity of a debate that would protect its members and every good faith technologist, and ethitechnically influence the pursuit of an information society common cultural esthetic; of the other regalian domain's, civil society's, private sector's, and international organization's stakeholders on an apparent opposition of OpenStand to such a debate. To show this opposition, I have two public speaking yes/no tests: -- a clearly documented appeal procedure matching the precautionary rights and duties (which are constitutional in France) ­ that so far the IESG and IAB responses did not consider. -- a real time network non-neutrality/instability incident reporting protocol, permitting every concerned use/user to trigger security and economic adequate responses. Nobody denied the need yet, but where should it be discussed and agreed upon, except in an enhanced cooperation structure like the IGF, the IETF and IAB do not attend. I am certainly interested in any possible comment on these matters which illustrate the question posed by the lack of IDNA2008 and now RFC 6852 disclaimer: what is today the consensual ultimate referent in terms of internet technology, Datacommunications architecture and Digital architectonics? Should we revert to ITU, ISO, JTC1, UN? jfc From jefsey@jefsey.com Mon Aug 26 10:01:13 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 7B50321F9EC8 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:01:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.484 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.515, 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 YSHg0U2t8Vo1 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DEB821F9E5C for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lns-c10k03-v-62-35-238-138.dsl.sta.abo.bbox.fr ([62.35.238.138]:64731 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VE0A6-0006tp-BW; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:01:06 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 19:01:00 +0200 To: IDNA update work From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <2013082614265176828363@cnnic.cn> References: <52124960.2080905@stpeter.im> <9B194C30AF1839167A9EA490@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5215CD28.8010303@mozilla.org> <5215EFBF.10706@mozilla.org> <92EA91C5B1632C567761E75A@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <2013082614265176828363@cnnic.cn> 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: <20130826170108.4DEB821F9E5C@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" , Anne van Kesteren , iucg@ietf.org, iutf@iutf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] Standardizing on IDNA 2003 in the URL Standard 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, 26 Aug 2013 17:01:13 -0000 At 08:27 26/08/2013, Jiankang Yao wrote: >>With reference to your comments below, I think that many people's >>views have evolved in the last four years. I'm sure that Unicode >>Consortium would be glad to work together on improving UTF46. > >Is it possible to standardlize UTS46 based on IETF process? for >eample, making the main contents of UTS46 as the RFC. John has commented from an "insider" point of view. From an external/global OpenUse point of view, this could certainly be a good, but risky, thing endangering the IDNA2008 consensual compromise. The reasons why it might be the case call for general considerations that need to be documented in order to be clear to everyone. I began doing it at: http://iucg.org/wiki/OpenStand_context_vs._standardizing_IDNA2003 Comments are welcome before I publish it as a draft. jfc From bob.hinden@gmail.com Tue Aug 20 07:52:04 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 B8FDA21F99F3 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:52:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.393 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.207, BAYES_40=-0.185, NO_RELAYS=-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 nx+97pFVhzpC for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com (mail-wg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3D0B21F9980 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:52:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id b13so465453wgh.31 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:51:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=O5M3Zd+Dnbj8uQrRaoPi0mLmL1fG+KVA9tHAYRjEGvM=; b=BKWvgrXyb0hkYwJ2DIFryDWolYMX7PujSFzQONWa7NkMC9+PcdLgup4v1I1GZrjByt IbSagLkhLcQ/Xe3/ExAG4gojibDjJ8Y4LqseShB+jbfw/kpamC0ujEsfJFq7+b5PjHPY SITwE7Dkp3r1+G/eoFuut58583t6enuDixIwivKnKzfe04REMo4VycwtWDpX1oJMgBde NouEeb/GqyLM1WBDUGAd61aqqNczW4NO67iVFT8eFsd1BfJpvPrhopY026A3SOtQupMg d+omBnxSy6u9SsYPPi9HQjVVCq/UqTCIbo8SFYlfTBJChyInPr1DAl0JHbFR+HNPPMtk eljw== X-Received: by 10.180.11.8 with SMTP id m8mr12746590wib.31.1377010318369; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:51:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:9:4080:10:dc92:24c0:b7f5:e250? ([2601:9:4080:10:dc92:24c0:b7f5:e250]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a4sm24922382wik.11.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:51:56 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) From: Bob Hinden In-Reply-To: <5212c318.461d980a.7113.ffff9ab0SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:51:48 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <96122ED0-288B-4822-B4CE-525DE48E4975@gmail.com> References: <5212c318.461d980a.7113.ffff9ab0SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> To: JFC Morfin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 05:09:29 -0700 Cc: Bob Hinden , iucg@ietf.org, iutf@iutf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] further to your response 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: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:52:04 -0000 I received your email. Bob On Aug 19, 2013, at 6:14 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 00:27 09/08/2013, Russ Housley wrote: >> JFC: >> No one has ever appealed to the ISOC BoT. I do not think it will = help your case to do so. Rather, as the appeal suggests, I encourage = you to start a dialogue with the IESG and the IAB about the next steps = with OpenStand. >=20 > Dear Russ, > I thank you for this. And I will certainly engage such a dialog that = progressively clarifies, in my mind, as being between the "OpenStand" = and an "OpenUse" points of view: > =20 > - OpenStand being (IP) architecture =96 software =96 standards and end = to end interoperability oriented. > - OpenUse being architectonic (the whole context and the comparative = rationales [deeper layers than politics and strategies] of different = architectures being used in building a world digital ecosystem - ex. = RINA as an example) =96 at least brainware and all the potential = complements/alternatives to IP =96 specifications and fringe to fringe = interintelligibility oriented. >=20 >> That said, RFC 2026 says this about appeals to the ISOC Board of = Trustees: >> 6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure >>=20 >> Further recourse is available only in cases in which the = procedures >> themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are >> claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the >> rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards = Process. >> Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of >> Trustees. The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge >> such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of >> acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of = the >> Trustees' review of the appeal. The Trustees shall review the >> situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF = on >> the outcome of its review. >>=20 >> The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be = final >> with respect to all aspects of the dispute. >=20 > I will then be the first one...=20 >=20 > My concern is about the time frame (must I appeal within two months = [before Sept 17]?). The mail address of Bob Hinden I used does not seem = to work. If this mail does not go through (this is why I use an ack) I = will contact ISOC and ask for the way in which I can reach him. It is up = to him I suppose to organize and inform me how to proceed. >=20 > jfc >=20 > ---- >=20 > PS. Bob, I suppose I need to better explain at this stage what I am = looking for in appealing ISOC and why.=20 >=20 > IMHO, both OpenStand and OpenUse are complementary but cannot be = considered as different complete layers of the architectonic pile we = start discerning, and they are at different development stages and = result from what I see as a (natural and necessary at this stage of the = digital development) societal fork between people and business centered = legitimate and complementary missions. >=20 > OpenStand is a gathering of five, well-established historic bodies, = plus followers which also are established operations. OpenUse is a = concept in limbo that is still underlying everwhere and pushed by a few = people like me with their own agenda (mine being IUse [intelligent use] = and the future Intersem [semiotic internet and intercomprehension = facilitation] - others' being cyberdefense, e-sovereignty or different = forms of =93relational spaces=94 or political control). >=20 > I/we all need this to clarifies in the open (you chose "OpenStand" as = a name). Therefore, my current target is threefold: >=20 > 1. to make OpenStand speak as a single organized group, through the = appeal procedure that is (so far) its only established/documented united = interface with the rest of us. >=20 > 2. to oblige OpenStand to speak for the future; thus far it has spoken = for the past (analyzing its de facto paradigm). How you intend to = articulate your mission toward the global community markets and your = "adequate and sufficient protection of the rights of all parties in a = fair and open end to end Internet Standards Process". We are not = anymore in a space-time world, but in a four dimensions business and = political world with counterwar stakes (what I do not do or permit today = may permit an inflexion in norms/standards that will cost all of us or a = stakeholder category a lot =93sometimes=94 =96 this sometimes being to = be more and more consistently thought and dealt with as any other = current =93somewhere=94). I experimented and won that kind of = pseudo-symetric warfare in lang-tags and IDNA, an area where Ray = Kurzwell tries to maintain the Google-spell. There are other ones ahead, = unless we mutually agree to discuss before fighting them. >=20 > 3. to help OpenUse to identify itself and to be identified by all as a = thinking necessity and a debate that is:=20 > - neither an OpenStand alternative standardization process,=20 > - nor an end-user society alternative to ISOC > - nor a people's claim for e-sovereignty alternative to the UN and = Govs,=20 > - nor an alternative to ISO as a maintainer of the global = normative concordance. >=20 > The understanding of the digisphere and cyberspace has changed and is = bound to keep evolving. This means that the ISOC architectural culture = is not only going to adapt, but also to expand to new architectures, = standards, uses, practices, and usages, and confront other = architectures. >=20 > Thus far, >=20 > 1. Good point: OpenStand corresponds to the removal of the IAB from = its de facto architectonic final arbitration. This means that:=20 > - (a) there is no attempt whatsoever to keep IP as a =93radical = monopoly=94 (as per Ivan Illitch) and=20 > - (b) there is a need for the creation of an independent = architectonic review board to help the interachitectural dialog that you = have suggested to me in order to start with the IESG and IAB.=20 > In ths appeal, I am only JFC Morfin. I need help and positive = critiques to update the IUCG charter if it still is a good proposition = and deploy the IUTF. >=20 > 2. Good point: two of the three RFC 2026 OpenStand organizations have = already answered this clarification need positively. This means that: > - (a) my OpenUse appeals initiative do not interfere with the IETF = and IAB areas of responsibilities,=20 > - (b) we should dialog together. Perfect, we all need the position = of the third (ISOC) one. >=20 > 3. Question mark: the structured appeal system ensuring that OpenStand = has technological coherence in the end to end area: > - (1) has never been tested yet (I will be the first one) > - (2) includes: > - neither the W3C (I architecturally consider it deals with an = OSI layer 6 partial patch)=20 > - nor the new OpenStand signatories and the cooperation with = the ITU. > Does that mean that they are of non fundamental importance in = the ISOC vision of the technological coherence? This is something = OpenUse would worry about as a fringe to fringe user on top of end to = end. > - (3) needs some clarification, as the IAB has not in its response = to my appeal fully played (IMHO) its RFC 2870 role of adviser/guide of = the network community. >=20 > 4. Question mark: there is an overlap between: > - the ISOC traditional relations with end-users and governments,=20 > - and the self-representation of end-users and IUsers (those having = the capacity to change the Internet to suit their own immediate and = operational needs) who port OpenUse political (hence diverse and = sometimes controversial) concerns.=20 >=20 > This is something that we (IUsers) already faced in the case of the = =93Internet Domain Name Owners=94 (IDNO) and of @larges. It led to = controversy and to the lame ICANN policy and structural situation in the = internet governance. An agreement on the role and preservation of ICANN = within the Internet Governance should be a target between OpenStand and = OpenUse. Also, should OpenUse target an multitechnology/multiuse network = of chapters. I was denied my proposition of an ISOC IPv6 Use Chapter. >=20 > 5. Question mark: an extended architectonic reading of the Internet = architecture has resulted from the IDNA2008 RFCs (in particular RFC = 5895, implying that the Internet architectural support of diversity [at = least in the linguistic diversity case] can be by fringe subsidiarity).=20= > - It enables the simultaneous support of several fringe to fringe = architectures over the same (consolidated) end to end architecture.=20 > - For clarity, I call these possible extended value complementary = architectures under the generic name of =93Internet+=94, (my own = =93interplus=94 approach is an example implying the use of =93plugged = layers on the user side=94). This possibility has been tested by = several, in independent ways and for different services. Cacophony may = result from it. This cacophony may lead to Internet type of services = hijacks and/or important innovative developments. The OpenUse/OpenStand = cooperation that Russ suggests should start there. Not to result in = conflicts, IMHO, there is first the need to know where ISOC leans in = this dia/multilog (on your both sides, on the intelligent use side, on = other more/less comprehensive sides?). >=20 > (NB! One can clearly see the ISOC scaling difficulty in this example: = the internet has become too large for a single organization to take care = of one of its architectural points of view and to represent the users of = the other [complementary or not] architectures). >=20 >=20 > Once this is clarified, the fundamental architectonic questions that = could be raised and discussed are: >=20 > 1. with the IAB/IESG, about =93peri-IP=94 (whatever it may mean and is = discussed) end to end architectures and active content fringe to fringe = extended network/communications services? >=20 > 2. with governments, about multinational sovereignties as in the case = of Google behaving like a virtual ubiquitous e-State? and network = technological neutrality? What about private registry and information = system managers (PRISM) >=20 > 3. with ISO and other NDOs, about the consistency of the general = =93architectony=94 (a default semantic frame of reference for the = machines) wherein we need to base a new standardization effort at the = (intersem) intercomprehension strata (asuperIANA for brains and thought = intercomprehension). >=20 > 4. with everyone interested, a multidisciplinary work on the Theory of = Communication we all miss. >=20 > 5. with everyone the e-colonization of the world (as per the = Information Report to the French Senate by Senator Catherine = MORIN-DESAILLY, March 20, 2013). You may access the IUCG compilation = toward this debate at http://architf.org and the way OpenUse may insert = itself in the WSIS international consensus for the Information society ( = while OpenStand would look like a private sector led enhanced = cooperation. http://iucg.org/wiki/WSISMAP-CARTESMSI). >=20 > Best > jfc >=20 >> Russ >>=20 >>=20 >> On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:04 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: >>=20 >>> Dear Russ, >>>=20 >>> I kept working a little bit (http://architf.org) on the consequences = of your stern and neutral response to my appeal regarding RFC 6852 ( = http://www.iab.org/appeals/2013-2). One never knows about the = positive/negative impact of something in/on the future, so I have no = comment. =20 >>>=20 >>> I only have now to complete my clarification endeavor in appealing = the ISOC BoT against the IAB for disregarding its RFC 2850 mission and = not providing guidance on a matter of importance for the Internet = community and the JTC1 (/SC38, NWIP 881 - I suppose, I have not yet a = copy of the US National Body Contribution). This will permit ISOC to = formalize its position and complete the RFC 6852 text as far as the = Internet nature and architecture are concerned in the architectonic = debate. >>>=20 >>> I have looked around and I do not find any formal documentation on = the ISOC appeal process. Could you, or Bob, help me with that = information? >>>=20 >>> I thank you for this help. I apologize for disrupting your vacation, = but I fear possible reglementary delays constraints and an ill timing = with the ISOC and ICC strategies for the October 21, 2013 HLLM on the = directly related global cyber ethic issues, as my interest is in a = positive clarification and not in negative disruption. >>>=20 >>> Best regards >>> jfc morfin