[ga] Let build on Richard Lindsay's reply

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

Dear Richard,
All of us considered to leave the GA at some time. But what is (was) 
interesting is it is a forum where the noise gives indications on the 
governance's mood and ideas (the sparks in a volcano's smoke). Not to do it 
would be like in a democracy not to care about street mobs. One who 
understood it very well and who is impressing by his presence on this GA is 
Vint Cerf.

IMHO it underlines we will not be able to spare a complete review of the 
whole internet (small "i") society (the human society network assessing its 
e-support). The current model (or lack of model) leaks from every part of 
its old rusty hull. Let be candid should the telephone core system get 
97.5% wrong service calls, could any teenager stop it in places and cost 
billions to users at whim, should it mostly ring for undesired marketing 
calls in foreign language but vivid erotic sounds, etc. would we accept it?

What is technically true, is also societally true (economic model, 
addressing management, digital divide) and politically true (governance, 
human relations, etc.).

Everyone tries to improve in a bottom-up way, and those in charge of 
something resolve to top-down patches based on whatever experience is at 
hand (like ICANN tries to build on Jon Postel's experience in managing in a 
quite opposite environment - after one opposed the evolutions he wanted). 
One also try to patch foreign solutions - like creating the "Registrars 
industry" like a pyramidal sales/support force - what freeze their normal 
evolution in a different environment from what their basic concepts apply 
(what is the future of the Registrars except surviving with the status quo).

This is a cyberworld. Cybernetics technically is the art of improving 
efficiency in using an analog thinking based on models built from 
feed-backs. The cyberspace is the virtual place where we do not know things 
and people by direct contact but from relational feed-back experience. You 
do not know me except by e-mail, responding your e-mail. I could be a 
machine, a man or a woman, a 20 or a 90 years old person, an alias of your 
direct assistant, etc. We (mankind) have some experience of that but not 
with that interactivity speed, not at this scale and with this diversity 
and not for everyone.

IMHO the modeling we lack is global: as much technical, as societal and as 
political. I am certainly biased since as a French I have a Cartesian 
approach leading me to consider a synthetic global and logical model 
continuity, somewhat opposed to the multiple case short term solutions we 
commonly use from a business and an anglo-saxon culture. I am also biased 
as having shared in the international governance since 1977: I observed 
different models and I tend to be impressed by models which worked better 
than others and of which I understood the built-in logic explaining why. I 
draft my own model in 1985 as part of my job and to support my own job 
definition (extended services of the de facto monopoly over the national 
monopolies' international packet switch services). I observe that this 
model still stands technically, societally and politically: this leads me 
to think than others better than me could have also better models. So there 
is room and matter for a debate and for progress.

The central issue is the human network organization: the folks (like 
@large), the groups (like the GA), the governance (like ICANN). What you 
say about Affilias is therefore very interesting and could help in the real 
problem we face: how to manage an action, a business, through a network 
governance. The "ICANN experiment" has shown the importance of the 
outsiders (Joe Sims, NTIA, Stakeholders) and the power of the Staff. Could 
you explain how things work at Affilias? There is probably far less 
outsides and more direct business considerations: who has the real power?

To finish on this, my feeling is that we have known three technologies, 
economical models and public responses in term of international data 
services: Tymnet, OSI, Internet. They supported roughly 6, 60 and 600 
millions of users. We have now to target 6 billions. IMHO this is a good 
challenge for the WSIS to try to understand how we can make it though a 
global commonly worked out modelization, and may be for us all (in here) to 
share in this international big show with something concrete, not leaving 
everything to the ITU leadership.

I do not know if anyone will have read this Frenglish post until here. But 
I would call on everyone interested in an internet governance working group 
(ICANN sponsored?). Such a group could draft a letter to the General 
Secretary of the ITU and to the GAC members (also members of the ITU), 
asking that the internet governance people and businesses, as organized by 
ICANN and ccTLDs, could work on a global modelization of the international 
e-network services to the world society. Today and of the coming two 
decades, to know where we come from and how we can make it.

jfc




















































--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html