Re: [ga] United Nations wants a big piece of the Internet... ICANN's death rattle?...
Dear Karl, Thank you for the input. At 07:13 28/03/04, Karl Auerbach wrote: It was not clear to me that the UN, as a body, wants the internet government job or headache, nor is it clear that there is any sort of This is true. It started 33 years ago with the first bill of what we would call today an IPS (Tymnet charging the NLM for their users access to their connected host). Since then the FCC, the ITU, the Govs, the business, the users try to define what it is about that transporting data between computers: something for the machines or something for the people. So what should rule the technologies. We known already three possibilities : a technology developed to address the users needs (because it was commercial), a technology developed to address the operators needs by ITU, an existing technology used for needs it was not designed for. Now the concept has grown into something common, it is time to consider what we (the mankind) really want. It may turn out that the existing solution is the right one (we would be lucky) or most probably that it is a part of the right one. The most interesting single thing, at least to my eyes, from the meeting was the fact that there occurred a meeting, on physical site of the United *Nations* in which nations, corporations, organizations, and even individuals discussed issues, face to face, on peer terms. (I only say that the *discussion* was on a peer basis; clearly the decisionmaking itself will be by national entities.) This is true. It is the real issue. The mankind has changed its way of addressing the planetary issues. The "internet" (name to be defined) is one of the responses. The real change is the way to organize authority in a world of coming 10 B of people.You can name it governance as the system which organizes it, technically it is cybernetics. (Cybernetics and Governance mean the same thing, translating the same Greek word meaning the art/way of steering). You could say that cybernetics is to life (real organisms/organizations..) what mathematics are to logic. Today the cybernetics has reached the size of the global system. It started as a way to understand existing organism, then a way to make their actions more efficient, now it is to make them to live and develop in good intelligence. So, you are right, decisions will be made by nations. But they will be taken over many people's propositions. The internet is a good example. It is here only because Berner Lee said so after following on half Doug Englebart's idea (you will note that none of them were real time network people and this is part of the problems). The meeting clearly (to me) has, like an earthquake, liquified the internet governance landscape. There is an opportunity now to affect The thing is that now we enter a time of practical science, with causes producing effects. Cybernetics is not mathematics nor mechanics. It concerns reactive systems. But even if it is not mathematics where a right solution is the good solution who ever proposes it, there are strong chances that correct approaches, by who ever proposes them will succeed. Also, in mathematics the right solution is to be checked by other mathematicians saying that the logic is correct, in cybernetics the right solution is the one which is efficient as checked by feedbacks of the members of the considered cosm. This is why - for Internet - ICP-3 is so important for its call to experimentation. Feelings are of no interest in this. Except through evaluation of QoS (quality of service) and brainware. This is why civil rights are of lesser interest to this debate than @large in waiting for consumers. And why very advisedly ICANN tried to simplify the problem in removing the @large from the picture. Governance can only be technical, economical, societal and political, but its common language is cybernetics (at least some degree of knowledge/understanding). Brainware has been disregarded long enough not to be yet understood and considered, except by those who command it well as M$ more by marketing and political feeling that real science. During the meeting there was a rhinoceros of an undiscussed issue standing in the corner - Globalization. Karl, good shout! I was fought this week at the IETF, as usual by Jim Reid, over the supposed non existing two meanings of the word :-) Globalization is a fact. There are however two cultural opposed ways (and many others in between) to understand and manage it. I certainly oppose the centralized one of ICANN, IETF, and of some US Gov people, etc. as inadequate to our distributed real life systems. I do not always oppose the one of José Bové's dreams - but probably still too collectivist. A distributed system is a place of individualism. Let just consider it scientifically, without predecided positions. Globalization started the day Earth started being formed. The same as Information society started the day Adam said Eve their names. Not exactly new issues. What is the new issue is the digitalization which permits to switch a new information dissemination paradigm. After the publication monolog, and postal exchange dialog we entered the digital ubiquity. The problem we face today is that many people worked on it. Some are open minded. Some are less. All of those I know are from a point of view, a need, an experience This means that some defend their positions, and others listen to others positions. I am afraid the problem we have is that the Internet community has not the proper structures/culture to talk with others. IETF is to say how the internet should work. IAB should say the way the internet is to internet with others. But IAB is silent. What is IAB responding for example to MPEG-21? Even to SiteFinder they can only respond "RFCs".... after 20 years. And Verisign must sue ICANN to try to rock the boat. jfc
|