From jefsey@jefsey.com Sun Aug 12 11:14:52 2012 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 09A4821F85D5 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:14:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.928 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.928 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.670, 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 PWcSIW7hh4tJ for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:14:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m169.montage2.altserver.com (m169.montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E7221F85C6 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:14:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:51530 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1T0cgQ-0003bd-IL; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:14:39 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:38:16 +0200 To: IUCG From: jefsey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_319987955==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage2.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-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Message-Id: <20120812181447.C2E7221F85C6@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: IUTF Subject: [iucg] IUSG statement 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, 12 Aug 2012 18:14:52 -0000 --=====================_319987955==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed The IUSG released the following statement (http://iusg.org/wiki/20120813_-_Statement_proposing_an_open_IETF/WG/RFC3869bis): August 13, 2012 : Suggestion of an Open IETF/WG/RFC3869bis In reference to the "Modern Global Standards Paradigm" document proposed by the IETF and IAB Chairs to the endorsement of other SDOs. This matter is a matter of trust in the IETF (as well as in the whole US organized I* structural set: ICANN, IANA, GAC) and how to restore/maintain confidence. As IUsers (Members of the IUse community interested in an intelligent use of the whole digital ecosystem), FLOSS developers, end-users, governments, and operators, we are accustomed to trusting the ITU in its plug to plug basic interconnection services area. We are not accustomed yet to trusting the "I*" structural set in its end to end value-added interoperations service area. * This is for the very reasons that the IAB started to pertinently document but with no effective result in RFC 3869. * This is because the IETF did not want to participate in the WSIS consensus. * This is because the IETF considered us in the way that they think the ITU considers them. * This is due to our patient and friendly (sometimes tough) experience of the ICANN, ISOC, IETF, IANA, and GAC attitude and culture. We want this to be corrected, the IETF to relax, and everyone to obtain clearer documentation of the UDP/TCP/SCTP strata, to ensure that the Internet technology and its R&D are not under direct or indirect commercial influence and its governance is not solely conducted by the USG. This is also the case because some of us and commercial interests as well are engaged in exploring, testing, and documenting, in coordination with the IETF, the fringe to fringe extended services "Internet+" area, and its non-ITU/IETF documented layers. We need credibility, stability, and homogeneity and simple interfaces in the Internet area as all of us currently have from the ITU. Please understand that in this Internet+ endeavor we do not want to obey the ITU and IETF more than you want to obey the ITU and our emerging IUTF. However, we need non blocking clarity, transparency, and predictability. Our suggestion is, instead of unilaterally promoting a standardization BCP in pure American IETF language along a non IETF documented process, to propose an RFC 3869bis open working group with people from all the concerned SDOs, the ITU to begin with, in order to reflect a standardization world ethitechnical (ethic of technical standardization) consensus on the way, not to best sign clients or deliver to subscribers, but to intelligently serve us, the users. To contribute to this effort, we have engaged ourselves in a reflection on the matter at http://iutf.org/wiki/Modern_Global_Standards_Paradigm. We will see how it develops. Should a WG/RFC3869Bis be created, IUSG would certainly participate. --=====================_319987955==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" The IUSG released the following statement ( http://iusg.org/wiki/20120813_-_Statement_proposing_an_open_IETF/WG/RFC3869bis ):


August 13, 2012 : Suggestion of an Open IETF/WG/RFC3869bis

In reference to the "Modern Global Standards Paradigm" document proposed by the IETF and IAB Chairs to the endorsement of other SDOs.

This matter is a matter of trust in the IETF (as well as in the whole US organized I* structural set: ICANN, IANA, GAC) and how to restore/maintain confidence.

As IUsers (Members of the IUse community interested in an intelligent use of the whole digital ecosystem), FLOSS developers, end-users, governments, and operators, we are accustomed to trusting the ITU in its plug to plug basic interconnection services area. We are not accustomed yet to trusting the “I*” structural set in its end to end value-added interoperations service area.
  • This is for the very reasons that the IAB started to pertinently document but with no effective result in RFC 3869.
  • This is because the IETF did not want to participate in the WSIS consensus.
  • This is because the IETF considered us in the way that they think the ITU considers them.
  • This is due to our patient and friendly (sometimes tough) experience of the ICANN, ISOC, IETF, IANA, and GAC attitude and culture.

We want this to be corrected, the IETF to relax, and everyone to obtain clearer documentation of the UDP/TCP/SCTP strata, to ensure that the Internet technology and its R&D are not under direct or indirect commercial influence and its governance is not solely conducted by the USG. This is also the case because some of us and commercial interests as well are engaged in exploring, testing, and documenting, in coordination with the IETF, the fringe to fringe extended services “Internet+” area, and its non-ITU/IETF documented layers. We need credibility, stability, and homogeneity and simple interfaces in the Internet area as all of us currently have from the ITU. Please understand that in this Internet+ endeavor we do not want to obey the ITU and IETF more than you want to obey the ITU and our emerging IUTF. However, we need non blocking clarity, transparency, and predictability.

Our suggestion is, instead of unilaterally promoting a standardization BCP in pure American IETF language along a non IETF documented process, to propose an RFC 3869bis open working group with people from all the concerned SDOs, the ITU to begin with, in order to reflect a standardization world ethitechnical (ethic of technical standardization) consensus on the way, not to best sign clients or deliver to subscribers, but to intelligently serve us, the users.

To contribute to this effort, we have engaged ourselves in a reflection on the matter at http://iutf.org/wiki/Modern_Global_Standards_Paradigm. We will see how it develops. Should a WG/RFC3869Bis be created, IUSG would certainly participate.


--=====================_319987955==.ALT-- From jefsey@jefsey.com Sun Aug 12 18:23:11 2012 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 4BDBE21F8628; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:23:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.42 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24, 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 LTarDNfy-rvy; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:23:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m169.montage2.altserver.com (m169.montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F01A21F861E; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:23:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:49542 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1T0jMy-0000tA-Oa; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:23:01 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 03:22:52 +0200 To: John C Klensin , Phillip Hallam-Baker From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: References: <1117B161-0454-4570-96BF-4045E4DB62A8@standardstrack.com> <276B7D303A96E840D2F95107@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> 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 - montage2.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-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Message-Id: <20120813012310.9F01A21F861E@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: IUTF , IUSG , IAB , IUCG , IESG , IETF list Subject: Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm 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, 13 Aug 2012 01:23:11 -0000 At 19:16 11/08/2012, John C Klensin wrote: >Given the fraction of the ITU budget and the even larger >fraction of the T-Sector budget that come from the US and >US-based Sector Members, that would be fairly irrational >behavior for those who wanted to preserve a healthy and >well-staffed ITU. John, This paragraph of yours is rather disturbing as it denotes a contradictory evaluation with mine, while I should be one of the people to convince the IETF is reasonable. My personal understanding, for having participated to CCITT under Earl Barberly's jurisdiction and related with ITU in personal capacity, is that the US and US-based T-sector Members are for the ITU a paid but also costly dominance and that getting rid of the US is a commercial dream shared by many non-US business ITU-T Members. I always imagined that for the US to leave the ITU would be like commiting suicide? The reason why I believe this is that North-America is technically and commercialy an island. It needs the continent far more than the continent needs it. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the guy who lead to the USSR dislocation and defined the US survival strategy as a world global cooperation coordinated by the USA, talks of present "loss of U.S. international credibility, growing U.S. international isolation." Please understand that the IETF is like ITU or UNESCO, to be internationally credible they should *not* be affected by the departure of one or one full class of its members, even if it is the USA or the US communications industry. So far, the RFC 3935 does not refers to a single country as an IETF protocol mandatory element. >On the other hand, irrational behavior would be nothing new in this >area so I can't disagree with the possibility. Correct. This is why, if I understand the motivation, I strongly disagree with the wording of the document and your evaluation of the situation. The US/IETF rationale being used is disagreed by non-US related industries and most probably by every Government (including the USG) because it looks like SDOs wanted to decide alone, based upon market results, about the standards for the people they represent. Worse, there may happen a good-will unilateral declaration supported by an island consensus which appears as an arrogant war declaration on the continent. Please remember that a Government is by the people for the people, and that Governments have consensually declared (IETF not bothering to attend) that the information society is to be people centered. People are to decide, not markets. Laws are the rule, not the RFCs. So, let try to workout RFC that can meet the laws and better explain how to make the laws to law makers. However, this might be an occasion for a true broad consensus research (http://iusg.org/wiki/20120813_-_Statement_proposing_an_open_IETF/WG/RFC3869bis) Sorry, but one should not help friends to commit an mistake, even if one might benefit from it in the short term. jfc From vesely@tana.it Mon Aug 13 02:11:39 2012 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 A0F2D21F86B0; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:11:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 ibxIH5I3Bl6W; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC19521F86BD; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:11:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1344849096; bh=MEn5QbKeJM4XlYabG3hXpw4GwEZr0tyiPwskmUMzDFE=; l=1306; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=dB079ZnL5FfxVKDACxXI9iPv+dhb05Jead0ALpV3e2xfDjuaqAlY1qtZq1I2ovsaN l0KblhzXGO4c6oSaf0O3TzP4ppdtfYrg0nThIyxFnVSvzp0LEhGWHFnHB8oqyul+Od Jya8sFYbPn8ek7iWihqaGoxgKrtUZ2ZDdz1hmwbU= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:11:36 +0200 id 00000000005DC033.000000005028C4C8.00000A0A Message-ID: <5028C4C8.40508@tana.it> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:11:36 +0200 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ietf" , internet users contributing group References: <1117B161-0454-4570-96BF-4045E4DB62A8@standardstrack.com> <276B7D303A96E840D2F95107@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <20120813012310.9F01A21F861E@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120813012310.9F01A21F861E@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm 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, 13 Aug 2012 09:11:39 -0000 On Mon 13/Aug/2012 03:22:52 +0200 JFC Morfin wrote: > At 19:16 11/08/2012, John C Klensin wrote: > >> On the other hand, irrational behavior would be nothing new in this >> area so I can't disagree with the possibility. > > Correct. This is why, if I understand the motivation, I strongly > disagree with the wording of the document and your evaluation of the > situation. The US/IETF rationale being used is disagreed by non-US > related industries and most probably by every Government (including > the USG) because it looks like SDOs wanted to decide alone, based upon > market results, about the standards for the people they represent. FWIW, I'd like to recall that several governments endorse IETF protocols by establishing Internet based procedures for official communications with the relevant PA, possibly giving them legal standing. Francesco Gennai presented a brief review of such procedures[*] at the APPSAWG meeting in Paris. At the time, John Klensin suggested that, while a more in-depth review of existing practices would be appreciated, the ITU is a more suitable body for the standardization of a unified, compatible protocol for certified email, because of those governmental involvements. [*] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-appsawg-1.pdf From john-ietf@jck.com Mon Aug 13 07:50:51 2012 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 00D4B21F853F; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 07:50:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.587 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 C5XOIXWouyXx; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 07:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D1BE21F846E; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 07:50:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1T0vsS-000Eju-Fj; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:44:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:50:25 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Alessandro Vesely Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5028C4C8.40508@tana.it> References: <1117B161-0454-4570-96BF-4045E4DB62A8@standardstrack.com> <276B7D303A96E840D2F95107@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <20120813012310.9F01A21F861E@ietfa.amsl.com> <5028C4C8.40508@tana.it> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 01:28:17 -0700 Cc: ietf , internet users contributing group Subject: Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm 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, 13 Aug 2012 14:50:51 -0000 --On Monday, August 13, 2012 11:11 +0200 Alessandro Vesely wrote: >... > FWIW, I'd like to recall that several governments endorse IETF > protocols by establishing Internet based procedures for > official communications with the relevant PA, possibly giving > them legal standing. Francesco Gennai presented a brief > review of such procedures[*] at the APPSAWG meeting in Paris. > At the time, John Klensin suggested that, while a more > in-depth review of existing practices would be appreciated, > the ITU is a more suitable body for the standardization of a > unified, compatible protocol for certified email, because of > those governmental involvements. > > [*] > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-appsawg-1.pdf Alessandro, Please be a little careful about context, as your sequence of comments above could easily be misleading. For the very specific case of email certified by third parties, especially where there is a requirement for worldwide recognition (the topic of the talk and slides you cited), the biggest problem has, historically, been an administrative and policy one, not a technical standards issue. We know how to digitally sign email in several different ways -- there is actually no shortage of standards. While additional standards are certainly possible, more options in the absence of compelling need almost always reduces practical interoperability. Perhaps the key question in the certified mail matter is who does the certifying and why anyone else should pay attention. The thing that makes that question complicated was famously described by Jeff Schiller (I believe while he was still IETF Security AD) when he suggested that someone would need to be insane to issue general-purpose certificates that actually certified identity unless they were an entity able to invoke sovereign immunity, i.e., a government. For certified email (or certified postal mail), your ability to rely on the certification in, e.g., legal matters ultimately depends on your government being willing to say something to you like "if you rely on this in the following ways, we will protect you from bad consequences if it wasn't reliable or accurate". If you want the same relationship with "foreign" mail, you still have to rely on your government's assertions since a foreign government can't do a thing for you if you get into trouble. That, in turn, requires treaties or some sort of bilateral agreements between the governments (for postal mail, some of that is built into the postal treaties). International organizations, particularly UN-based ones, can serve an important role in arranging such agreements and possibly even in being the repository organization for the treaties. In the particular case of certified email, the ITU could reasonably play that role (although it seems to me that a very strong case could be made for having the UPU do it instead by building on existing foundations). But that has nothing to do with the development of technical protocol standards. Historical experience with development of technical standards by governmental/legislative bodies that then try to mandate their use has been almost universally poor and has often included ludicrous results. A similar example arises with the spam problem. There are many technical approaches to protecting the end user from spam (especially malicious spam) and for facilitating the efforts of mail delivery service providers and devices to apply those protective mechanisms. Some of them justify technical standards that should be worked out in open forums that make their decisions on open and technical bases. But, if one wants to prevent spam from imposing costs on intended recipients or third parties, that becomes largely a law-making and law enforcement problem, not a technical one. If countries decide that they want to prevent spam from being sent, or to punish the senders, a certain amount of international cooperation (bilateral or multilaterial) is obviously going to be necessary. As with the UPU and email certification, there might be better agencies or forums for discussion than the ITU or there might not. But it isn't a technical protocol problem that the IETF is going to be able to solve or should even try to address, at least without a clear and actionable problem statement from those bodies. I do believe that the ITU can, and should, serve a useful role in the modern world. The discussion above (and some of the work of the Development and Radio Sectors) are good illustrations. But those cases have, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with the proposed statement, which is about the development and deployment of technical protocol standards. regards, john From jefsey@jefsey.com Tue Aug 14 04:56:39 2012 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 03C4A21F8609 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:56:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.49 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, 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 u4w6Tk-EG6Sj for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m169.montage2.altserver.com (m169.montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3199C21F85D8 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:56585 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1T1Fjg-000834-TB for iucg@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:56:37 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:24:36 +0200 To: internet users contributing group From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <5028C4C8.40508@tana.it> References: <1117B161-0454-4570-96BF-4045E4DB62A8@standardstrack.com> <276B7D303A96E840D2F95107@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <20120813012310.9F01A21F861E@ietfa.amsl.com> <5028C4C8.40508@tana.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_470106314==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage2.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-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Message-Id: <20120814115638.3199C21F85D8@ietfa.amsl.com> Subject: Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm 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, 14 Aug 2012 11:56:39 -0000 --=====================_470106314==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Alessandro, You give a very interesting example. Which hits the core of the question we now face : as users we need extra netowrking layers, who is to document them? IMHO there were three options: - logically consider three coordinating strata sharing ethitechncal core values (people centric, open use, sustainable development driven): (1) plug to plug telecoms basic services, (2) end to end internet value-added services, (3) fringe to fringe internet+ extended service supported by ITU, IETF and IUTF, the IUCG assuming the liaison between IETF and the emerging IUTF. - politically consider three cooperating standardization poles by : regalian sector (ITU), private sector (IETF), IUse sector (IUTF), spurred by specialized dynamic coalitions and deployed through dedicated enhanced cooperations (along WSIS conclusions). However the enhanced cooperations mechanisms had to be worked on in common: ICANN and USG delayed the process, IETF did not attend the WSIS. - a mix of them in considering historics, experience and users' trust. This should have resulted from the WSIS, but Brian Carpenter thought that the less IETF would be involved the better for the Internet. The IETF not attending, ICANN objecting, ISOC lobbying and the US activist led "civil society" made it difficult. Into this everything is a question of trust. Until now, like Governments and general public, I trusted the IETF on the basis of its best effort, with a big question mark about the definition of a "better internet" in RFC 3935, and being uncertain about the universal acceptance of its "core values". The IAB/IETF Chairs clear affirmation makes me sure now I cannot trust the IAB/IETF for the very reasons they are proud of. They want to be market driven, while I adhere to the WSIS consensus of an information society which is to be "people centric, à caractère humain, centrada en la personna". I want to things to be sustainable development and intelligent use driven on an end-user best serve basis, I do not stand for an open market and international competition but for a fair and efficient open use. Day to day operations along IETF protocols may be 100% correct, however we could lose faith in the motives of the IAB motives architectural choices. They may be biased and result in fundamental conflicts. What worries me most is that the Chairs and the US Members really share an US consensus not realizing that they describe the IETF American merchants want. Remember that RFC 3869 states: "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. In addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet.". The way the Affirmation is worded leads to an Internet infrastructure in trouble and possibly split (US Island vs Rest of the World): such a "balkanization" would be madness. I will try this after-noon to word out a more positive and comprehensive appreciation. jfc At 11:11 13/08/2012, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >On Mon 13/Aug/2012 03:22:52 +0200 JFC Morfin wrote: > > At 19:16 11/08/2012, John C Klensin wrote: > > > >> On the other hand, irrational behavior would be nothing new in this > >> area so I can't disagree with the possibility. > > > > Correct. This is why, if I understand the motivation, I strongly > > disagree with the wording of the document and your evaluation of the > > situation. The US/IETF rationale being used is disagreed by non-US > > related industries and most probably by every Government (including > > the USG) because it looks like SDOs wanted to decide alone, based upon > > market results, about the standards for the people they represent. > >FWIW, I'd like to recall that several governments endorse IETF >protocols by establishing Internet based procedures for official >communications with the relevant PA, possibly giving them legal >standing. Francesco Gennai presented a brief review of such >procedures[*] at the APPSAWG meeting in Paris. At the time, John >Klensin suggested that, while a more in-depth review of existing >practices would be appreciated, the ITU is a more suitable body for >the standardization of a unified, compatible protocol for certified >email, because of those governmental involvements. > >[*] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-appsawg-1.pdf > >_______________________________________________ >iucg mailing list >iucg@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg --=====================_470106314==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Alessandro,

You give a very interesting example. Which hits the core of the question we now face : as users we need extra netowrking layers, who is to document them? IMHO there were three options:

- logically consider three coordinating strata sharing ethitechncal core values  (people centric, open use, sustainable development driven): (1) plug to plug telecoms basic services, (2) end to end internet value-added services, (3) fringe to fringe internet+ extended service supported by ITU, IETF and IUTF, the IUCG assuming the liaison between IETF and the emerging IUTF.

- politically consider three cooperating standardization poles by : regalian sector (ITU), private sector (IETF), IUse sector (IUTF), spurred by specialized dynamic coalitions and deployed through dedicated enhanced cooperations (along WSIS conclusions). However the enhanced cooperations mechanisms had to be worked on in common: ICANN and USG delayed the process, IETF did not attend the WSIS.

- a mix of them in considering historics, experience and users' trust. This should have resulted from the WSIS, but Brian Carpenter thought that the less IETF would be involved the better for the Internet. The IETF not attending, ICANN objecting, ISOC lobbying and the US activist led "civil society" made it difficult.

Into this everything is a question of trust. Until now, like Governments and general public, I trusted the IETF on the basis of its best effort, with a big question mark about the definition of a "better internet" in RFC 3935, and being uncertain about the universal acceptance of its "core values".

The IAB/IETF Chairs clear affirmation makes me sure now I cannot trust the IAB/IETF for the very reasons they are proud of. They want to be market driven, while I adhere to the WSIS consensus of an information society which is to be "people centric, à caractère humain, centrada en la personna". I want to things to be sustainable development and intelligent use driven on an end-user best serve basis, I do not stand for an open market and international competition but for a fair and efficient open use.

Day to day operations along IETF protocols may be 100% correct, however we could lose faith in the motives of the IAB  motives architectural choices. They may be biased and result in fundamental conflicts.

What worries me most is that the Chairs and the US Members really share an US consensus not realizing that they describe the IETF American merchants want. Remember that RFC 3869 states: "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.  In addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet.". The way the Affirmation is worded leads to an Internet infrastructure in trouble and possibly split (US Island vs Rest of the World): such a "balkanization" would be madness.

I will try this after-noon to word out a more positive and comprehensive appreciation.

jfc

At 11:11 13/08/2012, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Mon 13/Aug/2012 03:22:52 +0200 JFC Morfin wrote:
> At 19:16 11/08/2012, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, irrational behavior would be nothing new in this
>> area so I can't disagree with the possibility.
>
> Correct. This is why, if I understand the motivation, I strongly
> disagree with the wording of the document and your evaluation of the
> situation. The US/IETF rationale being used is disagreed by non-US
> related industries and most probably by every Government (including
> the USG) because it looks like SDOs wanted to decide alone, based upon
> market results, about the standards for the people they represent.

FWIW, I'd like to recall that several governments endorse IETF
protocols by establishing Internet based procedures for official
communications with the relevant PA, possibly giving them legal
standing.  Francesco Gennai presented a brief review of such
procedures[*] at the APPSAWG meeting in Paris.  At the time, John
Klensin suggested that, while a more in-depth review of existing
practices would be appreciated, the ITU is a more suitable body for
the standardization of a unified, compatible protocol for certified
email, because of those governmental involvements.

[*] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-appsawg-1.pdf

_______________________________________________
iucg mailing list
iucg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg
--=====================_470106314==.ALT-- From jefsey@jefsey.com Tue Aug 14 18:25:39 2012 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 15E6121E80B1; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:25:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.543 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.917, BAYES_20=-0.74, FB_ALMOST_SEX=3.114, 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 rFGAvWDxiyqn; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:25:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m169.montage2.altserver.com (m169.montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88C821F8569; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:52028 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1T1SMI-0006fn-OT; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:25:20 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 03:25:14 +0200 To: John C Klensin ,Alessandro Vesely From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: References: <1117B161-0454-4570-96BF-4045E4DB62A8@standardstrack.com> <276B7D303A96E840D2F95107@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <20120813012310.9F01A21F861E@ietfa.amsl.com> <5028C4C8.40508@tana.it> 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 - montage2.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-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Message-Id: <20120815012537.E88C821F8569@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: IESG , IAB , ietf , IUTF , IUCG Subject: Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm 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: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:25:39 -0000 John, Allessandro, Let's get simple, clear, and real. We all implicitly refer to the OSI model. In this model, ITU made the "I" stand for plug to plug interconnectability, i.e. basic services. The IETF made it stand for end to end interoperability, i.e. value-added services. This establishes the complementarity between the ITU and IETF. The IAB and ITU have now ruled how this complementarity is to be exercised nowadays and one may hope that there will be an itu-discuss@ietf.org mailing list created in order to help/discuss the practicalities of this complementarity, as there is a tools-discuss@ietf.org mailing list. Some, like myself, make the "I" stand for fringe to fringe interintelligibility, i.e. extended services, which has been my job since Tymnet/1985. This is in full respect of the Internet architecture (i.e. RFC 1958: intelligence at the fringe). RFC 5895 illustrated the "unusual" nature of documenting fringe issues and was, for this reason, not published in the standard track by the WG/IDNAbis but rather as an independent submission in the information track. It was then necessary to understand whether the IETF area encompassed the fringe additional layers, identified as the IUI (intelligent use interface), extending the dumb Internet into a smart "Internet+". One may also make the "I" stand for intercomprehensibility, a research area introducing the Intersem (semiotic Internet) that our today innovations should stay open to. 1) The appeals have shown that the IESG and IAB did not think the Internet+ stratum was part of the IETF area, but that they were concerned. 2) The IUCG was, therefore, created in order to explore this new IUse area, where the user is not yet the end-user but its IUI, i.e. his/her/their own smart network middleware, which he/she/they can utilize to obtain the best possible use of the Internet and of all the other systems of the whole digital ecosystem (WDE). 3) The IETF Chair authorized the non-WG iucg@ietf.org in order to discuss the border technological issues, welcome lead users in their relations with the IETF, and experiment the interest and mechanisms of a place where to make sure that interoperability can be extended into interintelligibility and do not prevent potential ulterior intercomprehensibility. 4) The conclusion that one drafted was that an IUTF was necessary, which would copy the IRTF organization in order to stay in the same spirit and easily interface with other organizations. It would be sponsored by the IUSG enhanced cooperation among IUsers, which would assume the role of the governance of the IUI stratum. Now, the time has come for the emergence of this IUse community around this correlative IUI architectural stratum and to support extended services (such as, for example, your email certified by third parties or OPES projects). This ITU/Basic services, IETF/Value added services, and ITU/extended services complementarity seems logical. If we consider the history of these three poles and the nature of their financial and legal environments, one can observe that: - ITU is interested in long-term lines and bandwidth investments at the governmental level (laws and treaties). - IETF is interested in middle term computer (hardware) and protocols (software) networking level (RFC, contracts, parameters). - IUTF should be interested in man/machine/machine/man utilization processes (middleware), operational rules, configuration choices, and referential data. - it leaves open an upper brainware oriented stratum for a possible Intersem. This means that, at the end of the day, end-users should be provided with a coherent and harmonious connection, communications, and relations technical set of complimentary services, made of basic signal oriented services, value-added passive content oriented services, and extended interactive contents oriented services. This is why the "ITC" formula is incomplete and "ITCS" should be preferred, the notion of service being in particular fundamental to middleware. Sometimes, when the buzz was all about the statement that "people do not like problems, they want solutions", the response was "but they prefer services". Google, and now the Internet+ Google+, has well understood this truism. At this stage, such an SDOs multipolar equilibrium is slowly forming. One may identify, however, three key points of concern to be attentive to: - the strata border issues (subsidiarity): the cooperation flexibility introduced by the new IAB RFC on the IETF/ITU interfacing seems to be adequate but should be validated and pedagogically activated. - the introduction of the "OSEX" (Extended OSI) "PLUS", plugged layers on the user side, identified as (1) user side network services, (2) their interoperations among themselves, with network side applications, and the user own realm, and (3), in the Internet case, the presentation/authentication layer. - mutual trust and respect based upon compatible core and working values, project mutual distribution and documentation harmonization. These last points suffer from: - an early lack of recognition of the IUTF that is still in its early emergence phase. This is why the IETF Drafts on the IUTF description and its architectural framework should be completed with the help of IETF and ITU researchers. - an unexpected emerging divergence in the core values between the IETF and ITU, as expressed by the proposed IETF/IAB Chairs' Affirmation. The ITU and IUTF views adhere to the WSIS' declaration making the common effort toward a "people driven, à caractère humain, centrada en la persona" society. Until now, this could fit in with the affirmed IETF effort toward a "better" internet, even though what exactly "better" might mean was not explicated, but through RFC 3869, which states: "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. In addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet". Now, there is this blunt discovery that this understanding might be wrong and there is a possible fundamental conflict between the people/person driven apolitical centennial ITU and the new IUTF that both strive for a sustainable development and millennium objectives, and a market driven and competition fostering oriented ISOC/IETF supporting a political vision that sounds to be the GNI vision publicly supported by some of its most influent Members. This creates a non-technically neutral situation and needs to be clarified at the global Internet governance level. The ambiguity seems to come from discrepancies resulting from: - the currently discussed evolution of the Telecommunications International Rules (ITR) - the incompleteness of the IUTF Mission statement and Architectural Framework. - the different readings/lack of application of RFC 3869 where "the IAB believes that it would be helpful for governments and other non-commercial sponsors to increase their funding of both basic research and applied research relating to the Internet, and to sustain these funding levels going forward", because reduced governmental funding and profit, low-risk, short-term, and market focused funding "has been a decline in higher-risk but more innovative research activities. Industry has also been less interested in research to evolve the overall Internet architecture, because such work does not translate into a competitive advantage for the firm funding such work." It, therefore, seems that a good way to proceed from here would be for each of the three poles to target a concerted clarification. The ITU has planned its own homework for December; the IUTF is working on its Drafts and would welcome the participation of everyone interested. The IETF/IAB Chairs' Affirmation, RFC 3935, and the IAB Road Map could be used as an initial basis for a WG/RFC3869bis of which the charter would be to clarify what a "better internet means today in terms of core values and innovation objectives and what are the role, missions, and expected recognition areas of the ISOC, ICANN, and IANA. At the end of this memo, it should also be added that: 1. the world is today governed by different sets of principles embodied in various organizations involved in normalization and standardization, such as ISO, WTO, WIPO, and UNESCO that our own standardization effort should consider and respect. There are tensions due to political visions, industrial preoccupations, commercial interests, technological evolution, etc. and affirmation mutual inconsistencies with a great economic impact. This is the role of governments to protect their citizens from these tensions, prevent their exasperation, and maintain peaceful equilibriums. In the interconnected world of today, it is up to the Internet community to be the first to help their task and prevent undemocratic reactions in educating them in its technology, bringing the innovation their people need, and devising communication tools for a peaceful and rewarding life for all. In particular, there is confusion between normalization (i.e. documenting the normality) and standardization (i.e. building on top of this normality in order to adapt it to accepted evolutions). It permits standardization, through the WTO Agreement opposing technical barriers to trade, to be further used against legitimate NTMs (non-tariff measures) in order to obtain advantages on foreign markets through strategies of the insidious modifications of their normality that have not been democratically accepted. This dominance policy trend is often called "internationalization". WTO principles for the development of international standards are a way to counter this risk. In the same way as they may include a security section, normative documents should also detail how they took these principles into consideration. - Such an ethical effort when developing a standard is called ethitechnical and should also care about any possible conceptual or commercial prevention of further innovations. - This should prevent standardization organizations from getting polluted by competition and protectionist economic doctrines. This belongs to the general concept of network neutrality. 2. each pole should target a section in its contribution that would introduce the other poles to its own constituents. One cannot hope to truly progress together as long as parts of the different Memberships genuinely believe the others are obscure, secretive, and devil-driven plots. jfc At 16:50 13/08/2012, John C Klensin wrote: >Alessandro, > >Please be a little careful about context, as your sequence of >comments above could easily be misleading. > >For the very specific case of email certified by third parties, >especially where there is a requirement for worldwide >recognition (the topic of the talk and slides you cited), the >biggest problem has, historically, been an administrative and >policy one, not a technical standards issue. We know how to >digitally sign email in several different ways -- there is >actually no shortage of standards. While additional standards >are certainly possible, more options in the absence of >compelling need almost always reduces practical >interoperability. Perhaps the key question in the certified >mail matter is who does the certifying and why anyone else >should pay attention. The thing that makes that question >complicated was famously described by Jeff Schiller (I believe >while he was still IETF Security AD) when he suggested that >someone would need to be insane to issue general-purpose >certificates that actually certified identity unless they were >an entity able to invoke sovereign immunity, i.e., a government. > >For certified email (or certified postal mail), your ability to >rely on the certification in, e.g., legal matters ultimately >depends on your government being willing to say something to you >like "if you rely on this in the following ways, we will protect >you from bad consequences if it wasn't reliable or accurate". >If you want the same relationship with "foreign" mail, you still >have to rely on your government's assertions since a foreign >government can't do a thing for you if you get into trouble. >That, in turn, requires treaties or some sort of bilateral >agreements between the governments (for postal mail, some of >that is built into the postal treaties). > >International organizations, particularly UN-based ones, can >serve an important role in arranging such agreements and >possibly even in being the repository organization for the >treaties. In the particular case of certified email, the ITU >could reasonably play that role (although it seems to me that a >very strong case could be made for having the UPU do it instead >by building on existing foundations). > >But that has nothing to do with the development of technical >protocol standards. Historical experience with development of >technical standards by governmental/legislative bodies that then >try to mandate their use has been almost universally poor and >has often included ludicrous results. > >A similar example arises with the spam problem. There are many >technical approaches to protecting the end user from spam >(especially malicious spam) and for facilitating the efforts of >mail delivery service providers and devices to apply those >protective mechanisms. Some of them justify technical standards >that should be worked out in open forums that make their >decisions on open and technical bases. But, if one wants to >prevent spam from imposing costs on intended recipients or third >parties, that becomes largely a law-making and law enforcement >problem, not a technical one. If countries decide that they >want to prevent spam from being sent, or to punish the senders, >a certain amount of international cooperation (bilateral or >multilaterial) is obviously going to be necessary. As with the >UPU and email certification, there might be better agencies or >forums for discussion than the ITU or there might not. But it >isn't a technical protocol problem that the IETF is going to be >able to solve or should even try to address, at least without a >clear and actionable problem statement from those bodies. > >I do believe that the ITU can, and should, serve a useful role >in the modern world. The discussion above (and some of the work >of the Development and Radio Sectors) are good illustrations. >But those cases have, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with >the proposed statement, which is about the development and >deployment of technical protocol standards. > >regards, > john From vesely@tana.it Fri Aug 17 08:10:11 2012 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 ABDF221F8464 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:10:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.615 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.615 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n6kdG2YgRCDF for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C818821F8454 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:10:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1345216209; bh=9WwvMIwKDzYvfLqeKkKkX9DYtRbsdeLHYngFpMVY5S0=; l=1772; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=GGhS3U4qrr5P/sbeo4hU47gsG6wYjT2IJgHWEYoc8tkq1hc7AEavwxWMxwjrXssqJ SuYHdkXS4DOJC29PJcQts3cDaWpo3lkVu7EMslomUgIPssnsPou3YdcIHQOHqR+XRK dKgZ3MzMooSme2NDkie6OGcv0sGGb1WAq2M1Jh8Q= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:10:09 +0200 id 00000000005DC039.00000000502E5ED1.0000666C Message-ID: <502E5ED1.7070106@tana.it> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:10:09 +0200 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: iucg@ietf.org References: <1117B161-0454-4570-96BF-4045E4DB62A8@standardstrack.com> <276B7D303A96E840D2F95107@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <20120813012310.9F01A21F861E@ietfa.amsl.com> <5028C4C8.40508@tana.it> <20120814115638.3199C21F85D8@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120814115638.3199C21F85D8@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:10:11 -0000 On Tue 14/Aug/2012 02:24:36 +0200 JFC Morfin wrote: > Into this everything is a question of trust. Until now, like > Governments and general public, I trusted the IETF on the basis of its > best effort, with a big question mark about the definition of a > "better internet" in RFC 3935, and being uncertain about the universal > acceptance of its "core values". +1, a rather common stance. In addition, the openness of the IETF and its democratic leadership legitimate its operations in a way similar to a government's acts: Netizenship must mean something. > The IAB/IETF Chairs clear affirmation makes me sure now I cannot trust > the IAB/IETF for the very reasons they are proud of. They want to be > market driven, while I adhere to the WSIS consensus of an information > society which is to be "people centric, à caractère humain, centrada > en la personna". I want to things to be sustainable development and > intelligent use driven on an end-user best serve basis, I do not stand > for an open market and international competition but for a fair and > efficient open use. I too am worried by that use of the term "market". However, that term is sometimes used as a synonym of people's liking, so one can talk of the "market" of free products such as open source software. The Paradigm is ambiguous in that respect. Of course, money-centric thinking promotes strategies akin to greedy algorithms, which are bound to fail in multimodal situations. I read somewhere that people-centric thinking engages different areas of the brain. In fact, it can easily produce plans with an horizon of 10 or 20 years ahead, much better than the typical 5-year business plan. The major concern should be to preserve the IETF from corruption. From jefsey@jefsey.com Fri Aug 17 12:09:46 2012 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 479F321F84F4 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:09:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.751 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.011, BAYES_20=-0.74, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0XCo+4asZ0Su for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m169.montage2.altserver.com (m169.montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5C421F8468 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:60617 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1T2RvP-000150-S3; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:09:40 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 21:09:34 +0200 To: internet users contributing group ,iucg@ietf.org From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <502E5ED1.7070106@tana.it> References: <1117B161-0454-4570-96BF-4045E4DB62A8@standardstrack.com> <276B7D303A96E840D2F95107@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <20120813012310.9F01A21F861E@ietfa.amsl.com> <5028C4C8.40508@tana.it> <20120814115638.3199C21F85D8@ietfa.amsl.com> <502E5ED1.7070106@tana.it> 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 - montage2.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-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Message-Id: <20120817190945.3D5C421F8468@ietfa.amsl.com> Subject: Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:09:46 -0000 At 17:10 17/08/2012, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >The major concern should be to preserve the IETF from corruption. This is a very interesting point. It can be considered as intellectual corruption as well, coming from different types of polutions. I use "ethitechnical" for an ethical approach of the technical design (in order to help a further ethical use of the technology). "corruption" tells the things more clearly and bluntly. A good slogan and a key phrase in a charter for a WG/RFC3869bis. IRT the use of "market" this is a loaded word. This is precisely the word opponents to corruption do not want to hear. So why to use it when "usage" would be better; event if it means the same thing for some. Either it is a mistake, and it is easy to explain and correct. Or it is on purpose and we need to know it. I had that point with ISOC when we had a split in ISOC France over this matter. The ISOC documentation specifically proposed Platinum Members to sponsor what they wanted as research in the IETF. Truely what is to precisely word is what "better" means in the IETF mission's "for the Internet to work better" (RFC 3935) and to be clearer about core values. The internet has nothing to do with liberal values, it has to work. Actually we need to trust the IETF as being politically neutral as garanteeing a neutral network technology. Otherwise we cannot build on top of it. Best jefsey From jefsey@jefsey.com Mon Aug 20 15:40:44 2012 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 B37A811E8097 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:40:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.822 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.822 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.938, BAYES_50=0.001, FB_ALMOST_SEX=3.114, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bHPHBf89u-mz for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:40:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m169.montage2.altserver.com (m169.montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CEDB11E809B for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:40:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:60683 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1T3aeF-0008UT-R4 for iucg@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:40:41 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:40:36 +0200 To: iucg@ietf.org From: JFC Morfin Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_285147847==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage2.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-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Message-Id: <20120820224042.4CEDB11E809B@ietfa.amsl.com> Subject: [iucg] WWW III.0 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, 20 Aug 2012 22:40:44 -0000 --=====================_285147847==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit For your information. This is a mail I sent to tease the Civil Society activits and @large people. This people are quite active at nothing really constructive, it would be time they help us finding the proper orientation for the IUse strata emergence and governance. We have been listen by the IETF side (this list). We have been a long time in relation with ITU and proposed an ITU-I kind of interface with them. I had a long F2F meeting in Geneva on these issues with the ITU-T chair and send him a report, then a contribution on IPv6 with Louis Pouzin. I have been delayed by personal/health issues. This gave us time to consider the best approach, and the need for the IUTF. However, we never have been helped by Civil Society nor @large people (except in France, where I still chair france@large I created 12 years ago with other candidates to the ICANN/BoD) which is still alive. jfc ----- Dear folks, I am surprised and somewhat dismayed that no one in "Civil Society" and @LARGEs seems interested and that no one is discussing the "W.W.W. 3.0" episode that is now developing. I name WWW 3.0 as the Whole World War at the "3.0" level that concerns us all. This episode is the attempt of the commercial funding (and not the ITU) to take over ultimate control of international standardization's future throughout and through the Internet standardization process (IAB/IETF/ISOC), reversing its documented position in RFC 3869 and 3935 and hijacking innovation trends (the "3.0" coming layers). 1. Why do I talk of "commercial funding"? Because the IAB warned us of the danger that we are facing and explained how to avoid it in RFC 3869 (Aug. 2004) and neither Governments, nor Civil Society or International Organizations, did anything about it. Only a small kernel of us tried to do something. In Aug. 2004, the IAB stated: "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. In addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet." This resulted from "the reduced U.S. Government funding and profit-focused, low-risk, short-term industry funding has been a decline in higher-risk but more innovative research activities. Industry has also been less interested in research to evolve the overall Internet architecture, because such work does not translate into a competitive advantage for the firm funding such work." Therefore, IAB believed "that it would be helpful for governments and other non-commercial sponsors to increase their funding of both basic research and applied research relating to the Internet, and to sustain these funding levels going forward." * In Tunis the world's Governments left the US Government to take care of the Legacy Internet and did not get themselves involved in the emergence of any architectural research. * The IETF did not participate in the WSIS nor get involved in the IGF. * Civil society non-commercial sponsors or helpers did not join our successful efforts (so far) at the IETF: * To protect languages and cultures from engineering and business control. * Introduce a civil society technical place at the IETF (the Internet Users Contributing Group) * To obtain the validation of an Intelligent Use (IUse) Interface (IUI) concepts. * We feel alone in creating the Intelligent Use Task Force (IUTF) to explore, document, validate, and deploy the people centric capacity demanded by the WSIS. 2. Why do I use "3.0"? This is because in a nutshell if "2.0" has now an accepted meaning, the 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 "notions" (i.e. all of what can relate to a topic) can be perceived as: * "1.0" meaning: server centric monologue, and related * "2.0" meaning: network centric dialogue, and related * and "3.0" meaning: people centric polylogue, and related. So, * "Master/Slave" initial Web connections are "1.0". * Wikis, AJAX, WebSocket, etc. are "2.0". * The Internet+, the IUI (intelligent use interface), Midori/Hurd (the Microsoft's and Stallman's expected replacements for Windows and Linux), etc. are "3.0." Another "technical way" to understand this might be, in strict, simple, and robust concordance with RFC 1958, which defines the internet architecture, to say that: * 1.0 builds atop "plug to plug" hardware, * 2.0 builds atop "end to end" software, * and 3.0 atop "fringe to fringe" middleware. Two key points remain, however: what about "0.0" and "4.0" and exactly what is "3.0"? * "0.0" is everything that we do in order to communicate and understand information without digital tools in mind and that is generically called semiotics. "4.0" is what our brains do through digital semiotics that we can call brainware. * "3.0" is what RFC 1958 states that we must put at the fringe: network intelligent services. It is only some plugged layers on the user side (PLUS), extending the OSI communication model, along with its administration and governance. The "OSEX" model extended layers concern: * Security (and presentation in the Internet case). * Network services. * Interoperations between network applications and services In the users' life, it should appear as personal distributed middleware empowering browsers (in computers, mobiles, tablets, appliances, TVs, houses, cars, etc.) with intelligent open services that are free to choose their reference providers. One may understand a person's IUI as an "intelligent socket" system acting as private intelligent gateway network interfacing the OS of his/her machines and appliances in such a way that it makes that person the center of his/her freely selected worldwide digital ecosystem. 3. Why do I use "Whole"? This is because we do not discuss the Web or even the sole Internet any more. We discuss the whole digital ecosystem (WDE), i.e. all the physical or logical parallel interconnections to anything digital by our Intelligent Use Interface (IUI). So, what is at stake is the whole digital ecosystem industrial pollution (and corruption) and biased innovation. How? Through market driven commercially sponsored international standards, as was just explained by the IAB. To understand why: * a norm is the description of normality. Until now, norms were local (for a country) or professional (for a trade, skill, or task). * Norms, therefore, opposed globalization. This is why the trend that is pushed by the commercial funding is to unify normality, i.e. to shape the world as a unique market. Hundreds of wars and revolutions have failed to attain that target throughout history. Those who Richard Buckminster Fuller calls the "Grand Pirates" (in his "Operating Manual For Spaceship Earth") found a simpler way after WWI and WW II where they had lost control to engineers (from submarines and planes to the atom and computers): to recover control by using the common desire for international peace, human rights, democracy, etc. and the resulting needs for a better economy through a world market and rules. These rules in technologies are "standards". They say how to technically best build atop of norms. Therefore, they call for common uniform norms, and at the same time the international standards progressively shape a new "world normality" as, and for, a "common world market". This normality must be stable to protect market shares: as we know they call this stability the "status quo". Disruptive and fundamental innovations become a risk. TMs and incremental innovation are tuned to keep consumers buying. However, incremental innovation must be based upon international standards protecting from a competitor's breakthrough and have to be coherently ubiquitous to keep being accepted by the permanently reshaped customers (us). Industrial evolution is only permitted after amortization and only if it increases benefits. However, this is not the lead-users' (FLOSS, start-ups, user R&D, press) pace. What the Web 2.0 already did to the Internet 1.0 has to be digested and reshaped in a commercially favorable landscape of WebApps: this is the task of the International Standardization and marketing consensuses. The IDNA2008 consensus and its progressive propagation throughout the protocol space (WG/Precis) shows the coming of the IUI 3.0 and of the Internet+ (tested by Google+) – whatever you want to call that Internet built-in trend – as ineluctable. The International Standards bodies are to confuse and delay its concepts enough for it not to become: * An identified, independent, and acknowledged middleware standardization core area (IUTF) * A people centric enhanced cooperation capacity for the internet, social nets, telephone, radio, TV, digital music, e-books, etc. polycratic stewardship. Multistakeholderism must stay among commercial leaders, not to extend to everyone, especially if Civil Society and ethitechnics (ethical considerations in architectural design) are involved. 4. Why do I say "World"? This is because this does not only concern the sole US market, or the Western developed countries market, or even the emergent countries (India, China, Russia, etc.), but rather everywhere. This results from the WWWeb e-marketing field of competition. All is market driven and the market is global. No one must be able to endanger the commercial leaders' famous names and commercial rights anywhere in the world. The strategy for years has been called "internationalization": offensive business protection through the spread of the commercial leaders' industrial technology supported by: * favorable commercial conditions * correlative identical local standardization * permitted mass production increases, now on a multinational basis. A well known example is the Unicode consortium's (IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo!, Oracle...) successful technical "globalization": * internationalization of the media (International English capacity to quote any string in any script, which does not fully support the languages that use the scripts), being the maintainer of the ISO 10646 standard. * localization (local translation) of the English semantic, which does not support the various cultural semantics * language tagging for technical, operational, commercial non-neutral filtering purposes. This globalization is not a multilingualization that would set out to technically treat and culturally respect every language and its orthotypography the same as English is treated. 4. Why do I say "War"? Because of: 1. the TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) rules The WTO rules do not permit a country to protect its people against a technology (or a TLD, as we see with Saudi Arabia and GAC protests) that is an international standard. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_e.htm. This is why the ultimate weapon to fight States' Barriers to Trade is to erode the credibility of their legitimate policy objectives, such as: the requirements for quality, the respect of cultures and minorities the protection of human health and safety, or the environment. The war is then on the Governments and the slogan for the "market forces" is to protect ... Human Rights (through free speech in using international market standards, for example) against people's Governments. One of the vectors is GNI (http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/) where Microsoft, Google etc. decide on the people's best interest and defend their rights. This is far from democratically transparent technical standardization and network neutrality. Certainly civil and human rights are to be defended, but is it up to technical standardization bodies to defend them? In confusing the issues doesn't that harm the needed international standard technical credibility and lead to political restrictions affecting the free flow of information? 2. The competition on us, the users We (technical and civil society people) represent a real danger for industry leaders in being: Uncontrollable international competition, potentially rogue, possible divergent definition of what is a "better" Internet (in RFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement). Smart enough to introduce, propose, defend, and deploy more innovative and people centric architectural solutions (i.e. for a "3.0" information society that is "people centered, à caractère humain, centrada en la persona"). In the same way as the financial crisis is resulting from financially dominant people/entities (speculators and corporate interests), the international standardization mechanics is to protect market driven standardizing from lead users disrupting innovation. 5. The strategic impact. This battle is now conducted at the ITU, IAB/IETF, IEEE, ISO, Governments level. This results in particular from the Dubai December meeting (http://world2012.itu.int/) that is to revise the International Telecommunications Rules (http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx). In this debate, commercial leaders plan to oppose and negotiate with States alone, since Civil Society is absent and users are represented by their Governments. In the Internet case, the IAB and IETF Chairs (the IAB Chair is a Microsoft employee) have prepared a draft document putting the (now ISOC affiliate) IETF in the commercial leaders' orbit. Being the facilitator of the Civil Society IETF iucg@ietf.org mailing list and one of the bootstrappers of the "3.0" IUTF (Intelligent Use Task Force), I posed the question of us, the IUsers, of the non-consulted IUCG channel and of our emergent IUTF standardization pole and called for a WG/RFC3869bis (a WG dedicated to rewrite RFC 3869), * To consensually adapt the description of the IAB/IETF position regarding the standardization referents (market or people, commerce or sustainable development), as we do not think that market and commercial interests can develop without the support of the end-users. * To document what the IETF means in its mission statement of "influencing those who design, use, and manage the Internet for it to work *better*" and to protect us against the RFC3869 IAB identified threats of sole merchant sponsoring bias of the Internet R&D. Our remarks have been acknowledged as part of the working file of the IAB (Track #202). We also maintain an information portal on the matter and our Civil Society Technical Rights in this area at http://iutf.org/wiki/Modern_Global_Standards_Paradigm. The best place for debating and building up a Civil Society technical position that can really help as part of the IETF standardization process, at least to show that we actually feel concerned by the "constitution of the Internet" (the source code as documented by Dr. Lessig) is the non-WG (i.e. permanent) iucg@ietf.org mailing list and helping us with the http://iucg.org/wiki site. 6. A civil society ethitechnical doctrine More generally, there is a need for Civil Society to have a technical doctrine or at least mutually informed presence. The reason why is that technology choices are not ethically neutral. * As documented by the IAB RFC 3869, there are no technically rooted influences. They are commercial in the current episode, but they respond to (magnified) real political risks of influences. Civil Society has to make sure that the people's best interest is the reference. * Network neutrality is something difficult to enforce. The easiest way to get it is to get the technology designed in such a way that it is difficult or costly to not respect it (what is not the case today, but that a "3.0" evolution helps in making it very complex to filter the network). * A multilinguistic internet (the cybernetic of all the languages and cultures considered as equal on the common network) is to be explored and discussed. This is a typical civil society concern and, moreover, the real issue is our (we the people) relations to mecalanguages, i.e. our own native languages as spoken by our machines and in our anthtropobotic society ("on the internet, nobody knows I am a dog" or a machine). We did start in France an effort in that area, creating the MLTF, participating with MAAYA (http://maaya.org) and ITU, UNESCO, SIL, Union Latine, Linguasphere, etc. This effort is to be resumed. * The civil society has accepted a stewardship inherited from the "1.0" legacy. Experience has been gained during the last decade regarding the various forms of governance tools, stakeholders, etc. common decision/trend processes, etc. while the 2.0 evolution and the 3.0 preparation will make several of them obsolete. * One of the major concerns, since it is traditionally a main part of the Internet Governance, is certainly the plain technological deployment of the DNS, content centric networking, and the resulting opportunities and evolutions in the understanding of the domain name nature, use, economy, and impact on commercial, IPR, and societal usages. To address these needs, a clear understanding of the very technical nature of the Internet tool and of its cons and pros is necessary. We cannot object to politics if they do not understand the internet nature when they discuss SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, HADOPI, etc. legislations and act as if we are actually no better than them. The IUCG is certainly the best place to discuss and document the Internet as a global and coherent system, under the control of engineers, in a way that civil society and decision and lawmakers can understand and master it. Help would certainly be welcome, in every language that governments and users use, as documented in ISO 3166. The best way to join the IUCG and to help us (me) is at http://iucg.org/wiki/ jfc --=====================_285147847==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit For your information. This is a mail I sent to tease the Civil Society activits and @large people. This people are quite active at nothing really constructive, it would be time they help us finding the proper orientation for the IUse strata emergence and governance. We have been listen by the IETF side (this list). We have been a long time in relation with ITU and proposed an ITU-I kind of interface with them. I had a long F2F meeting in Geneva on these issues with the ITU-T chair and send him a report, then a contribution on IPv6 with Louis Pouzin.

I have been delayed by personal/health issues. This gave us time to consider the  best approach, and the need for the IUTF. However, we never have been helped by Civil Society nor @large people (except in France, where I still chair france@large I created 12 years ago with other candidates to the ICANN/BoD) which is still alive.
jfc

-----

Dear folks,

I am surprised and somewhat dismayed that no one in “Civil Society” and @LARGEs seems interested and that no one is discussing the “W.W.W. 3.0” episode that is now developing. I name WWW 3.0 as the Whole World War at the “3.0” level that concerns us all. This episode is the attempt of the commercial funding (and not the ITU) to take over ultimate control of international standardization's future throughout and through the Internet standardization process (IAB/IETF/ISOC), reversing its documented position in RFC 3869 and 3935 and hijacking innovation trends (the "3.0" coming layers).

1.       Why do I talk of “commercial funding”?
 
Because the IAB warned us of the danger that we are facing and explained how to avoid it in RFC 3869 (Aug. 2004) and neither Governments, nor Civil Society or International Organizations, did anything about it. Only a small kernel of us tried to do something.
 
In Aug. 2004, the IAB stated: “The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. In addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet.”
 
This resulted from “the reduced U.S. Government funding and profit-focused, low-risk, short-term industry funding has been a decline in higher-risk but more innovative research activities. Industry has also been less interested in research to evolve the overall Internet architecture, because such work does not translate into a competitive advantage for the firm funding such work.” Therefore, IAB believed “that it would be helpful for governments and other non-commercial sponsors to increase their funding of both basic research and applied research relating to the Internet, and to sustain these funding levels going forward.”
  •  In Tunis the world’s Governments left the US Government to take care of the Legacy Internet and did not get themselves involved in the emergence of any architectural research.
  •  The IETF did not participate in the WSIS nor get involved in the IGF.
  •  Civil society non-commercial sponsors or helpers did not join our successful efforts (so far) at the IETF:
    •  To protect languages and cultures from engineering and business control.
    • Introduce a civil society technical place at the IETF (the Internet Users Contributing Group)
    • To obtain the validation of an Intelligent Use (IUse) Interface (IUI) concepts.
  •  We feel alone in creating the Intelligent Use Task Force (IUTF) to explore, document, validate, and deploy the people centric capacity demanded by the WSIS.
2.       Why do I use “3.0”?

This is because in a nutshell if “2.0” has now an accepted meaning, the 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 "notions" (i.e. all of what can relate to a topic) can be perceived as:
  • “1.0” meaning: server centric monologue, and related
  • “2.0” meaning: network centric dialogue, and related
  • and “3.0” meaning: people centric polylogue, and related.
 So,
  • “Master/Slave” initial Web connections are “1.0”.
  • Wikis, AJAX, WebSocket, etc. are “2.0”.
  • The Internet+, the IUI (intelligent use interface), Midori/Hurd (the Microsoft's and Stallman's expected replacements for Windows and Linux), etc. are “3.0.”
Another "technical way" to understand this might be, in strict, simple, and robust concordance with RFC 1958, which defines the internet architecture, to say that:
  • 1.0 builds atop “plug to plug” hardware,
  • 2.0 builds atop “end to end” software,
  • and 3.0 atop “fringe to fringe” middleware.
 Two key points remain, however: what about “0.0” and “4.0” and exactly what is “3.0”?
  •  “0.0” is everything that we do in order to communicate and understand information without digital tools in mind and that is generically called semiotics. “4.0” is what our brains do through digital semiotics that we can call brainware.
  •  “3.0” is what RFC 1958 states that we must put at the fringe: network intelligent services. It is only some plugged layers on the user side (PLUS), extending the OSI communication model, along with its administration and governance. The “OSEX” model extended layers concern:
    • Security (and presentation in the Internet case).
    • Network services.
    • Interoperations between network applications and services
 In the users’ life, it should appear as personal distributed middleware empowering browsers (in computers, mobiles, tablets, appliances, TVs, houses, cars, etc.) with intelligent open services that are free to choose their reference providers. One may understand a person’s IUI as an “intelligent socket” system acting as private intelligent gateway network interfacing the OS of his/her machines and appliances in such a way that it makes that person the center of his/her freely selected worldwide digital ecosystem.
 
3.       Why do I use “Whole”?

This is because we do not discuss the Web or even the sole Internet any more. We discuss the whole digital ecosystem (WDE), i.e. all the physical or logical parallel interconnections to anything digital by our Intelligent Use Interface (IUI).
 
So, what is at stake is the whole digital ecosystem industrial pollution (and corruption) and biased innovation. How?
 
Through market driven commercially sponsored international standards, as was just explained by the IAB.
 
To understand why:
  • a norm is the description of normality. Until now, norms were local (for a country) or professional (for a trade, skill, or task).
  • Norms, therefore, opposed globalization. This is why the trend that is pushed by the commercial funding is to unify normality, i.e. to shape the world as a unique market.
Hundreds of wars and revolutions have failed to attain that target throughout history. Those who Richard Buckminster Fuller calls the "Grand Pirates" (in his "Operating Manual For Spaceship Earth") found a simpler way after WWI and WW II where they had lost control to engineers (from submarines and planes to the atom and computers): to recover control by using the common desire for international peace, human rights, democracy, etc. and the resulting needs for a better economy through a world market and rules.

These rules in technologies are “standards”. They say how to technically best build atop of norms. Therefore, they call for common uniform norms, and at the same time the international standards progressively shape a new “world normality” as, and for, a “common world market”.

This normality must be stable to protect market shares: as we know they call this stability the "status quo".

Disruptive and fundamental innovations become a risk. TMs and incremental innovation are tuned to keep consumers buying. However, incremental innovation must be based upon international standards protecting from a competitor’s breakthrough and have to be coherently ubiquitous to keep being accepted by the permanently reshaped customers (us).

Industrial evolution is only permitted after amortization and only if it increases benefits. However, this is not the lead-users’ (FLOSS, start-ups, user R&D, press) pace.

What the Web 2.0 already did to the Internet 1.0 has to be digested and reshaped in a commercially favorable landscape of WebApps: this is the task of the International Standardization and marketing consensuses. 

The IDNA2008 consensus and its progressive propagation throughout the protocol space (WG/Precis) shows the coming of the IUI 3.0 and of the Internet+ (tested by Google+) – whatever you want to call that Internet built-in trend – as ineluctable. The International Standards bodies are to confuse and delay its concepts enough for it not to become:
  • An identified, independent, and acknowledged middleware standardization core area (IUTF)
  • A people centric enhanced cooperation capacity for the internet, social nets, telephone, radio, TV, digital music, e-books, etc. polycratic stewardship.
 Multistakeholderism must stay among commercial leaders, not to extend to everyone, especially if Civil Society and ethitechnics (ethical considerations in architectural design) are involved.

4.       Why do I say “World”?

This is because this does not only concern the sole US market, or the Western developed countries market, or even the emergent countries (India, China, Russia, etc.), but rather everywhere. This results from the WWWeb e-marketing field of competition. All is market driven and the market is global. No one must be able to endanger the commercial leaders’ famous names and commercial rights anywhere in the world.

The strategy for years has been called “internationalization”: offensive business protection through the spread of the commercial leaders’ industrial technology supported by:
  • favorable commercial conditions
  • correlative identical local standardization
  • permitted mass production increases, now on a multinational basis.
A well known example is the Unicode consortium’s (IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo!, Oracle...) successful technical “globalization”:
  • internationalization of the media (International English capacity to quote any string in any script, which does not fully support the languages that use the scripts), being the maintainer of the ISO 10646 standard.
  • localization (local translation) of the English semantic, which does not support the various cultural semantics
  • language tagging for technical, operational, commercial non-neutral filtering purposes.
This globalization is not a multilingualization that would set out to technically treat and culturally respect every language and its orthotypography the same as English is treated.
 
4.       Why do I say "War"?

Because of:

1.       the TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) rules
The WTO rules do not permit a country to protect its people against a technology (or a TLD, as we see with Saudi Arabia and GAC protests) that is an international standard. 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_e.htm.
 
This is why the ultimate weapon to fight States’ Barriers to Trade is to erode the credibility of their legitimate policy objectives, such as:
the requirements for quality,
the respect of cultures and minorities
the protection of human health and safety,
or the environment.
 The war is then on the Governments and the slogan for the “market forces” is to protect ... Human Rights (through free speech in using international market standards, for example) against people's Governments.
 
One of the vectors is GNI ( http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/) where Microsoft, Google etc. decide on the people’s best interest and defend their rights. This is far from democratically transparent technical standardization and network neutrality. Certainly civil and human rights are to be defended, but is it up to technical standardization bodies to defend them? In confusing the issues doesn’t that harm the needed international standard technical credibility and lead to political restrictions affecting the free flow of information?
2.       The competition on us, the users
We (technical and civil society people) represent a real danger for industry leaders in being:
Uncontrollable international competition, potentially rogue, possible divergent definition of what is a “better” Internet (in RFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement).
Smart enough to introduce, propose, defend, and deploy more innovative and people centric architectural solutions (i.e. for a “3.0” information society that is "people centered, à caractère humain, centrada en la persona").
In the same way as the financial crisis is resulting from financially dominant people/entities (speculators and corporate interests), the international standardization mechanics is to protect market driven standardizing from lead users disrupting innovation.
5.       The strategic impact.

This battle is now conducted at the ITU, IAB/IETF, IEEE, ISO, Governments level.
 
This results in particular from the Dubai December meeting (http://world2012.itu.int/) that is to revise the International Telecommunications Rules ( http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx). In this debate, commercial leaders plan to oppose and negotiate with States alone, since Civil Society is absent and users are represented by their Governments.

In the Internet case, the IAB and IETF Chairs (the IAB Chair is a Microsoft employee) have prepared a draft document putting the (now ISOC affiliate) IETF in the commercial leaders' orbit.
 
Being the facilitator of the Civil Society IETF iucg@ietf.org mailing list and one of the bootstrappers of the “3.0” IUTF (Intelligent Use Task Force), I posed the question of us, the IUsers, of the non-consulted IUCG channel and of our emergent IUTF standardization pole and called for a WG/RFC3869bis (a WG dedicated to rewrite RFC 3869),
  • To consensually adapt the description of the IAB/IETF position regarding the standardization referents (market or people, commerce or sustainable development), as we do not think that market and commercial interests can develop without the support of the end-users.
  • To document what the IETF means in its mission statement of "influencing those who design, use, and manage the Internet for it to work *better*" and to protect us against the RFC3869 IAB identified threats of sole merchant sponsoring bias of the Internet R&D.
Our remarks have been acknowledged as part of the working file of the IAB (Track #202). We also maintain an information portal on the matter and our Civil Society Technical Rights in this area at http://iutf.org/wiki/Modern_Global_Standards_Paradigm.

The best place for debating and building up a Civil Society technical position that can really help as part of the IETF standardization process, at least to show that we actually feel concerned by the “constitution of the Internet” (the source code as documented by Dr. Lessig) is the non-WG (i.e. permanent) iucg@ietf.org mailing list and helping us with the http://iucg.org/wiki site.
 
6.       A civil society ethitechnical doctrine
 
More generally, there is a need for Civil Society to have a technical doctrine or at least mutually informed presence. The reason why is that technology choices are not ethically neutral.
  • As documented by the IAB RFC 3869, there are no technically rooted influences. They are commercial in the current episode, but they respond to (magnified) real political risks of influences. Civil Society has to make sure that the people’s best interest is the reference.
  • Network neutrality is something difficult to enforce. The easiest way to get it is to get the technology designed in such a way that it is difficult or costly to not respect it (what is not the case today, but that a “3.0” evolution helps in making it very complex to filter the network).
  • A multilinguistic internet (the cybernetic of all the languages and cultures considered as equal on the common network) is to be explored and discussed. This is a typical civil society concern and, moreover, the real issue is our (we the people) relations to mecalanguages, i.e. our own native languages as spoken by our machines and in our anthtropobotic society (“on the internet, nobody knows I am a dog” or a machine). We did start in France an effort in that area, creating the MLTF, participating with MAAYA (http://maaya.org) and ITU, UNESCO, SIL, Union Latine, Linguasphere, etc. This effort is to be resumed.
  • The civil society has accepted a stewardship inherited from the “1.0” legacy. Experience has been gained during the last decade regarding the various forms of governance tools, stakeholders, etc. common decision/trend processes, etc. while the 2.0 evolution and the 3.0 preparation will make several of them obsolete.
  • One of the major concerns, since it is traditionally a main part of the Internet Governance, is certainly the plain technological deployment of the DNS, content centric networking, and the resulting opportunities and evolutions in the understanding of the domain name nature, use, economy, and impact on commercial, IPR, and societal usages.
To address these needs, a clear understanding of the very technical nature of the Internet tool and of its cons and pros is necessary. We cannot object to politics if they do not understand the internet nature when they discuss SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, HADOPI, etc. legislations and act as if we are actually no better than them.

The IUCG is certainly the best place to discuss and document the Internet as a global and coherent system, under the control of engineers, in a way that civil society and decision and lawmakers can understand and master it.

Help would certainly be welcome, in every language that governments and users use, as documented in ISO 3166.

The best way to join the IUCG and to help us (me) is at http://iucg.org/wiki/

jfc
--=====================_285147847==.ALT-- From jefsey@jefsey.com Wed Aug 22 08:50:12 2012 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 E921A21F8576 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:50:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.024 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.439, BAYES_40=-0.185, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CFs0mXvQcDQV for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m169.montage2.altserver.com (m169.montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5848D21F854A for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:64779 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1T4DC7-0000VQ-8u for iucg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:50:11 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:48:42 +0200 To: iucg From: JFC Morfin 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 - montage2.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-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Message-Id: <20120822155012.5848D21F854A@ietfa.amsl.com> Subject: [iucg] digisphere 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: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:50:13 -0000 Dear IUsers, The ongoing debate raised by Russ Housley and Bernard Adoba (Chairs of the IETF and IAB) shows that we need a common understanding of the whole digital ecosystem (WDE) nature, organization, normalization, governance allowing everyone at every level in Governments, Civil Society, Private Sector, International Bodies, and Standardization and Documentation Organizations. After discussing this need for a few months now, I have resolved to dedicate a wiki+site named "digisphere.org" to a presentation made from a "3.0" Internet+ (hence, person centric) point of view. The IUCG could be its prime adviser and coordinator. The rationale is that a person centric vision will: * be easier to understand by individual readers, leading to their feeling more concerned. * better present the ongoing innovation towards 3.0 * make the WSIS resolution for a person centric society current * help differentiate between the information, communications, and intellition world and their evolution. * simplify the introduction of the 4.0 level and of the 0.0 common basis. * make the reference to the cybernetical, logical, and agorical domains and processing moods clearer * and the appearance of the "project" concept connatural to the digital environment, aside from the traditional "subject" and "object" duality. I also feel that it might simplify the analysis of new contextual, but also circumstantial, projects, as we most probably have to investigate new programming environments and far more secure operating systems. The idea would be to use and maintain a general presentation framework that could be kept documented in a more and more in depth manner until the actual normative documents. This is something the Wiki 2.0 can do while the development of this collective work could also serve to better understand the characteristics of the wiki 3.0 evolution. At this stage we are not speaking of the technical content and requirements, but rather of the presentation of information and knowledge (and probably of some termonological research or stabilization). One of the basic questions is about "tracks". I would propose three tracks or portal or working approaches: 1. the "president track", i.e. the final documentation, it being hierarchical (what is the whole digital ecosystem as the root question) or etherarchical (several entry points: what is the internet, what is the information society, etc.) 2. the "chaos track", with any document, position, note, or exploratory imagining that more or less fits with the digisphere or accompany the ongoing discussion on the parallel mailing list. 3. the "working track" for the common writing of pages to be further transferred or attached to the "president track". Comments are welcome. jfc From linguasphere@btinternet.com Wed Aug 22 09:23:58 2012 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 BA39E21F849B for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:23:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PUi82fZGqYfE for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm3.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com (nm3.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com [77.238.189.60]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E9F421F85DA for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [77.238.189.233] by nm3.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Aug 2012 16:23:51 -0000 Received: from [212.82.108.224] by tm14.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Aug 2012 16:23:51 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1001.bt.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Aug 2012 16:23:51 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 649568.65975.bm@omp1001.bt.mail.ird.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 86534 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Aug 2012 16:23:51 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=s1024; t=1345652631; bh=3Z9jbTtXzbPtc8VD0XeYMJzpmzg51pWb+HQgzZ1nGP0=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=fjDmpFDZX/zGN4zqUK6d9aVCDzKjYcetkh5IxisTQ057f3Y9fVKalClz+ess8cWuRjMbEgrnz2Pl0kCLFuEOgFK5mRYEHUg+k2Ra48D0zVDYAJZ/1dVdsTVT1z5XCm8PumFaIi/2qB6day+ox9hSuUUYS0ovfEGi7YPw3pV4W1M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=MIv4RNY51XYxWiePHW9EQWkdHcHy9qouMdqEePWBQlpbqg7wq0hfubkq4Rtgv5SUoTKuMZjyVGneh0kci7wJJ7fy/46QZZ/y7pe8GbYfdW9dR9QDTZXu5D6hKEKLLC/cJ8EiZooaeJFoyWJ1Nxhu12dmfTW/wu6Mlr28qfVaRRo=; X-YMail-OSG: lomOlzAVM1nE.g2Na6.rswGO4xyLpCNWzwOAHHNQGn_6Mzw qtsYKDxxaPTUMeEjJc4MViEv7sRHX.0RI0nYEGOQgPxpJSlSpENaxmpUc62A oFZUlmol2hqSAzQp_b6M5M3Y_9Nt3t4JpH0PQjXcZ1aOEhJA4NphCHQLwDib _VwXJI7lLsImZHT__ow_kCOc8v62gxzvAy_cjJDvnY4Rz_SlK939x5IWcwvv kqy6AWEkALwxdkQ02U.UrO11p9YlkdLJ.ViEjvQt8qaRnxO6g56_1VlGPzEu ph4QsCl5Ibwaqk4qbScyPnmRcYf.iEwdz5XaUkD6_X31jVBfO50YND4CDxFA x81yrobUOkzzrEiPuSjDgdNTvASws4XNBhn17jpr7gazv7QEbZaUw8lS_4Cc R2MgkH_he3ywJ_JFxFrVoPvflZAsv1OnruXbBqic0tiOAVV_Yh029DiAN6as THAx61gVPNMO3Z3Bk39e8KQfmzTGlDCph.evXGWy.DUhxAFVxpg-- Received: from [81.131.237.166] by web87401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:23:51 BST X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.121.416 References: <20120822155012.5848D21F854A@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-ID: <1345652631.84555.YahooMailNeo@web87401.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:23:51 +0100 (BST) From: David Dalby To: internet users contributing group In-Reply-To: <20120822155012.5848D21F854A@ietfa.amsl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-47836184-533742540-1345652631=:84555" Subject: Re: [iucg] digisphere X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: David Dalby , internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:23:58 -0000 ---47836184-533742540-1345652631=:84555 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A>________________________________=0A> From: JFC Morfin =0A>To: iucg =0A>Sent: Wednesday, 22 August 2= 012, 16:48=0A>Subject: [iucg] digisphere=0A> =0A>=0A>Dear IUsers,=0A>=0A>Th= e ongoing debate raised by Russ Housley and Bernard Adoba (Chairs of the IE= TF and IAB) shows that we need a common understanding of the whole digital = ecosystem (WDE) nature, organization, normalization, governance allowing ev= eryone at every level in Governments, Civil Society, Private Sector, Intern= ational Bodies, and Standardization and Documentation Organizations.=0A>=0A= >After discussing this need for a few months now, I have resolved to dedica= te a wiki+site named "digisphere.org" to a presentation made from a "3.0" I= nternet+ (hence, person centric) point of view. The IUCG could be its prime= adviser and coordinator.=0A>=0A>The rationale is that a person centric vis= ion will:=0A>=0A>*=A0 be easier to understand by individual readers, leadin= g to their feeling more concerned.=0A>*=A0 better present the ongoing innov= ation towards 3.0=0A>*=A0 make the WSIS resolution for a person centric soc= iety current=0A>*=A0 help differentiate between the information, communicat= ions, and intellition world and their evolution.=0A>*=A0 simplify the intro= duction of the 4.0 level and of the 0.0 common basis.=0A>*=A0 make the refe= rence to the cybernetical, logical, and agorical domains and processing moo= ds clearer=0A>*=A0 and the appearance of the "project" concept connatural t= o the digital environment, aside from the traditional "subject" and "object= " duality.=0A>=0A>I also feel that it might simplify the analysis of new co= ntextual, but also circumstantial, projects, as we most probably have to in= vestigate new programming environments and far more secure operating system= s.=0A>=0A>The idea would be to use and maintain a general presentation fram= ework that could be kept documented in a more and more in depth manner unti= l the actual normative documents. This is something the Wiki 2.0 can do whi= le the development of this collective work could also serve to better under= stand the characteristics of the wiki 3.0 evolution.=0A>=0A>At this stage w= e are not speaking of the technical content and requirements, but rather of= the presentation of information and knowledge (and probably of some termon= ological research or stabilization).=0A>=0A>One of the basic questions is a= bout "tracks". I would propose three tracks or portal or working approaches= :=0A>=0A>1. the "president track", i.e. the final documentation, it being h= ierarchical (what is the whole digital ecosystem as the root question) or e= therarchical (several entry points: what is the internet, what is the infor= mation society, etc.)=0A>=0A>2. the "chaos track", with any document, posit= ion, note, or exploratory imagining that more or less fits with the digisph= ere or accompany the ongoing discussion on the parallel mailing list.=0A>= =0A>3. the "working track" for the common writing of pages to be further tr= ansferred or attached to the "president track".=0A>=0A>Comments are welcome= .=0A>jfc=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>___________________________________________= ____=0A>iucg mailing list=0A>iucg@ietf.org=0A>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/= listinfo/iucg=0A>=0A>=0A> ---47836184-533742540-1345652631=:84555 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<= /div>

From: JFC Morfi= n <jefsey@jefsey.com>
To: iucg <iucg@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 August 2012, 16:48
Subject: [iucg] digisphere
 <= /div>

Dear IUsers,

The ongoing debate raised by Russ Housley= and Bernard Adoba (Chairs of the IETF and IAB) shows that we need a common understanding of = the whole digital ecosystem (WDE) nature, organization, normalization, gove= rnance allowing everyone at every level in Governments, Civil Society, Priv= ate Sector, International Bodies, and Standardization and Documentation Org= anizations.

After discussing this need for a few months now, I have = resolved to dedicate a wiki+site named "digisphere.org" to a presentation m= ade from a "3.0" Internet+ (hence, person centric) point of view. The IUCG = could be its prime adviser and coordinator.

The rationale is that a = person centric vision will:

*  be easier to understand by indiv= idual readers, leading to their feeling more concerned.
*  better p= resent the ongoing innovation towards 3.0
*  make the WSIS resoluti= on for a person centric society current
*  help differentiate betwe= en the information, communications, and intellition world and their evolution.
*  simplify the introduction of the 4.0 level and of th= e 0.0 common basis.
*  make the reference to the cybernetical, logi= cal, and agorical domains and processing moods clearer
*  and the a= ppearance of the "project" concept connatural to the digital environment, a= side from the traditional "subject" and "object" duality.

I also fee= l that it might simplify the analysis of new contextual, but also circumsta= ntial, projects, as we most probably have to investigate new programming en= vironments and far more secure operating systems.

The idea would be = to use and maintain a general presentation framework that could be kept doc= umented in a more and more in depth manner until the actual normative docum= ents. This is something the Wiki 2.0 can do while the development of this c= ollective work could also serve to better understand the characteristics of= the wiki 3.0 evolution.

At this stage we are not speaking of the technical content and requirements, but rather of the presentation of = information and knowledge (and probably of some termonological research or = stabilization).

One of the basic questions is about "tracks". I woul= d propose three tracks or portal or working approaches:

1. the "pres= ident track", i.e. the final documentation, it being hierarchical (what is = the whole digital ecosystem as the root question) or etherarchical (several= entry points: what is the internet, what is the information society, etc.)=

2. the "chaos track", with any document, position, note, or explora= tory imagining that more or less fits with the digisphere or accompany the = ongoing discussion on the parallel mailing list.

3. the "working tra= ck" for the common writing of pages to be further transferred or attached t= o the "president track".

Comments are welcome.
jfc




_______________________________________________
iucg mailing list
iucg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg

---47836184-533742540-1345652631=:84555-- From mfberny@gmail.com Thu Aug 23 04:59:03 2012 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 5E0E721F851B for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 04:59:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.422 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g3EpX4+Y4HiI for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 04:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D5D21F85A2 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 04:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qcac10 with SMTP id c10so468163qca.31 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 04:59:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=DQ1GQbMKkbbmCCG1kPonmwfuhAoOLV1i1+9O1WWCDL8=; b=0Ylze4KxzXLwj2n7iT5u4JVMEAJC9pqw36zJT47rxIl0HfgC/MSi055MXI+xjWvO8U Aw4u1jzkoA8OuCAGU6Y/AMEkSEzqhdXdaCYksbZ21GBxTsAs19jegYsp2T7FLbTKYlhH RMCjVRQ7wJjz0xMuOAuWtSfx3DgDQ9+1rwOvcjeBgYKmuB5rAHkNsbxWd95vDudDYbGQ 0BDkFi1w2o7kqcn2Y3Q+MK6YbGv7GILVhvGLEGsmYQXj4PP3CpNmpCqgSOc9u2kJMhXE 183Qjk065Adnhi7xupGbmi5oDWhf2m7G2k8MIW4wSMDA7xjKchf8xWckIKF0GwDH7+Dm mxww== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.185.138 with SMTP id co10mr2244345qab.95.1345723141687; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 04:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.35.10 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 04:59:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120822155012.5848D21F854A@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20120822155012.5848D21F854A@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:59:01 +0200 Message-ID: From: Marie-France Berny To: internet users contributing group Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303349d7d3890f04c7ed959c Subject: Re: [iucg] digisphere 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, 23 Aug 2012 11:59:03 -0000 --20cf303349d7d3890f04c7ed959c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Jefsey, may I suggest four tracks: 1. your president guide 2. specific pages - same as president's guide on a short topic per topic on going basis: *not to understand but to know* 3 and 4 as proposed. MFBerny 2012/8/22 JFC Morfin > > Dear IUsers, > > The ongoing debate raised by Russ Housley and Bernard Adoba (Chairs of the > IETF and IAB) shows that we need a common understanding of the whole > digital ecosystem (WDE) nature, organization, normalization, governance > allowing everyone at every level in Governments, Civil Society, Private > Sector, International Bodies, and Standardization and Documentation > Organizations. > > After discussing this need for a few months now, I have resolved to > dedicate a wiki+site named "digisphere.org" to a presentation made from a > "3.0" Internet+ (hence, person centric) point of view. The IUCG could be > its prime adviser and coordinator. > > The rationale is that a person centric vision will: > > * be easier to understand by individual readers, leading to their feeling > more concerned. > * better present the ongoing innovation towards 3.0 > * make the WSIS resolution for a person centric society current > * help differentiate between the information, communications, and > intellition world and their evolution. > * simplify the introduction of the 4.0 level and of the 0.0 common basis. > * make the reference to the cybernetical, logical, and agorical domains > and processing moods clearer > * and the appearance of the "project" concept connatural to the digital > environment, aside from the traditional "subject" and "object" duality. > > I also feel that it might simplify the analysis of new contextual, but > also circumstantial, projects, as we most probably have to investigate new > programming environments and far more secure operating systems. > > The idea would be to use and maintain a general presentation framework > that could be kept documented in a more and more in depth manner until the > actual normative documents. This is something the Wiki 2.0 can do while the > development of this collective work could also serve to better understand > the characteristics of the wiki 3.0 evolution. > > At this stage we are not speaking of the technical content and > requirements, but rather of the presentation of information and knowledge > (and probably of some termonological research or stabilization). > > One of the basic questions is about "tracks". I would propose three tracks > or portal or working approaches: > > 1. the "president track", i.e. the final documentation, it being > hierarchical (what is the whole digital ecosystem as the root question) or > etherarchical (several entry points: what is the internet, what is the > information society, etc.) > > 2. the "chaos track", with any document, position, note, or exploratory > imagining that more or less fits with the digisphere or accompany the > ongoing discussion on the parallel mailing list. > > 3. the "working track" for the common writing of pages to be further > transferred or attached to the "president track". > > Comments are welcome. > jfc > > > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > iucg mailing list > iucg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/iucg > --20cf303349d7d3890f04c7ed959c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jefsey,
may I suggest four tracks:

1. your president guide
2.= specific pages - same as president's guide on a short topic per topic = on going basis: not to understand but to know
3 and 4 as proposed= .

MFBerny

2012/8/22 JFC Morfin <jefsey= @jefsey.com>

Dear IUsers,

The ongoing debate raised by Russ Housley and Bernard Adoba (Chairs of the = IETF and IAB) shows that we need a common understanding of the whole digita= l ecosystem (WDE) nature, organization, normalization, governance allowing = everyone at every level in Governments, Civil Society, Private Sector, Inte= rnational Bodies, and Standardization and Documentation Organizations.

After discussing this need for a few months now, I have resolved to dedicat= e a wiki+site named "digisphere.org" to a presentation made from a "3.0" I= nternet+ (hence, person centric) point of view. The IUCG could be its prime= adviser and coordinator.

The rationale is that a person centric vision will:

* =A0be easier to understand by individual readers, leading to their feelin= g more concerned.
* =A0better present the ongoing innovation towards 3.0
* =A0make the WSIS resolution for a person centric society current
* =A0help differentiate between the information, communications, and intell= ition world and their evolution.
* =A0simplify the introduction of the 4.0 level and of the 0.0 common basis= .
* =A0make the reference to the cybernetical, logical, and agorical domains = and processing moods clearer
* =A0and the appearance of the "project" concept connatural to th= e digital environment, aside from the traditional "subject" and &= quot;object" duality.

I also feel that it might simplify the analysis of new contextual, but also= circumstantial, projects, as we most probably have to investigate new prog= ramming environments and far more secure operating systems.

The idea would be to use and maintain a general presentation framework that= could be kept documented in a more and more in depth manner until the actu= al normative documents. This is something the Wiki 2.0 can do while the dev= elopment of this collective work could also serve to better understand the = characteristics of the wiki 3.0 evolution.

At this stage we are not speaking of the technical content and requirements= , but rather of the presentation of information and knowledge (and probably= of some termonological research or stabilization).

One of the basic questions is about "tracks". I would propose thr= ee tracks or portal or working approaches:

1. the "president track", i.e. the final documentation, it being = hierarchical (what is the whole digital ecosystem as the root question) or = etherarchical (several entry points: what is the internet, what is the info= rmation society, etc.)

2. the "chaos track", with any document, position, note, or explo= ratory imagining that more or less fits with the digisphere or accompany th= e ongoing discussion on the parallel mailing list.

3. the "working track" for the common writing of pages to be furt= her transferred or attached to the "president track".

Comments are welcome.
jfc





_______________________________________________
iucg mailing list
iucg@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg

--20cf303349d7d3890f04c7ed959c-- From jefsey@jefsey.com Fri Aug 24 10:26:03 2012 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 630C521F86CB; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:26:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.186 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.187, BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yjCq3XoM6CqI; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m169.montage2.altserver.com (m169.montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7738221F860B; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:64617 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1T4xdv-0002b1-NP; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:26:00 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:25:53 +0200 To: "iab@iab.org" ,IESG From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: References: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A5A9B462FF@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <502B40B7.8050100@cisco.com> <502B48E8.7060104@gmail.com> 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 - montage2.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-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Message-Id: <20120824172602.7738221F860B@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU, Governance List , IUSG , iucg , IUTF Subject: Re: [iucg] FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:26:03 -0000 After discussions in various capacities, I think I can now report today, by August 24 as requested, a rough consensus observation that the most preeminent objections to the IAB/IESG Chair's "Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm" joint document are: 1. not to use a rough consensus oriented procedure to contradict RFC 3869 and RFC 3935. 2. the "market driven" concept. I do not really know what the authors truly mean there, but readers from different cultures understand "market" in the way that it is documented by Wikipedia, i.e.: "A market is one of many varieties of systems, institutions, procedures, social relations and infrastructures whereby parties engage in exchange. While parties may exchange goods and services by barter, most markets rely on sellers offering their goods or services (including labor) in exchange for money from buyers. It can be said that a market is the process by which the prices of goods and services are established. For a market to be competitive there must be more than a single buyer or seller.". As such this is something they want to protect their internet from, calling on their national Justice courts if needed. However, it has been observed that Americans might use "market" instead of "installed base", as in the kind of BIND or Apache programs. In the first case, it might also have been some sort of confusion with the paid support provided by ISC ("We detain 80% of the DNS market"). 3. The concern that technology could be officially used to encourage brand name based communities, opposing networking neutrality and innovation, and to balkanize the applications area what by essence IUsers would oppose. There is a real demand for a clarification appeal procedure to be carried, during the Doha preparation and period, should this document be signed as is, without RFC 3869 having been made obsolete and the notion of a "better Internet" in RFC 3935 having been made clearer. On the other hand, there is also a real demand for a consensual text to be signed by the emerging IUTF if ethically possible (we do not to go by rough consensus but by multiconsensus, so "broad" consensus would be acceptable to us). We have maintained at http://iutf.org/wiki/Modern_Global_Standards_Paradigm a complete neutral file on the issue to help the debate among the IUse community (http://iutf.org/wiki/IUse_community). jfc