Subject: Re: [iucg] [bestbits] Joint Statement of Civil Society Delegates to the 2013 Internet Governance Forum

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:09:32 +0200

At 10:15 26/10/2013, Pranesh Prakash wrote:

The 2013 IGF provided a valuable
space for the members of our group to engage with other stakeholder
groups, through the Forum’s sessions and also through side meetings and

Dear Pranesh,

We have to be conceptually coherent. The WSIS has
documented a fractal multi-stakeholderism, i.e. distributed,
multilayered, and subject to rules that are independent from the scale
and size of the considered areas and perspectives of the digisphere. This
multi-stakeholderism was assigned to an enhanced
cooperation process, gathering four perspectives, which are: (1)
regalian or public area, (2) private or business sector, (3)
international or multilateral bodies and (4) civil society or the people
from all over the world.

At a time when, as never before in human history, man is surrounded by
technology to the point that mechanical intelligence is integrated in the
societal tissue and algorithmic governance through big data has been
identified as a common government and business practice that
progressively extend to everyone's life, man has never been less aware of
the technical nature of his omnipresent technological environment.

You translate this fact in adding what you call the "technical
community" to the four WSIS identified perspectives. This calls for
comments and a definitive action.

To avoid a conceptual error

There is a danger of confusion: if "technical
community" was taken at a conceptual level, it would be an
error. There are at least four main reasons why:

1. it would depart from the WSIS consensus and, therefore, abandoning its
legitimacy.

2. it would result from the pressure of a global coup, led by a
non-technical monopoly attempt (ICANN) of which the by-laws conflict with
the concept of enhanced cooperation.

3. it would not translate today's reality in its whole, where people have
personal and collective needs in the digital area (digisphere) that are
addressed:

- by artifacted pervasive responses (technology) delivered by a whole set
of stakeholders’ scientific and technical  branches.

-  via the people's intelligent use (IUse) of these
multiple-layers-multiple-technologies

---  if they match the specifications issued, validated and
propagated by their lead users.

---  and are favored by a propitious context nationally organized by
Government and international by multilateral organizations, watched by
Civil Society.

4. as per the "whole is larger than the sum of its
parts" synergy principle this results in a wealth
addition by a whole (WAW) network collective process (also called
“wholization”) that is documented by the "Technical Coalition"
members in their founding statement (RFC 6852) as a "huge
bounty". Their sponsors are the stakeholders that want to
share this huge bounty exclusively among them.

A strategy to complete

However, since we cannot share a complete, off the shelve
digisphere wide consensus, I agree that a strategy is needed in
order to best help the architectonical evolution of a world with a
unified economy, scores of governments and international bodies, millions
of businesses and billions of people. To efficiently match a fractal
world we need a “peer and/inter peer” strategy that will be the same at
every layer.

There is one that everyone understands and feels at ease with: the usual
seller/buyer - provider/user - merchant/consumer dialog. In this
strategy, which usually looks for a win/win outcome, one has to welcome,
acknowledge, and match the initiated action with an equivalent
reaction.

In this case we are to:

- hear and possibly help the initiative of a multi-stakeholder (Govs, CS,
Business and multilateral) "technical coalition" that seems to
have a "statUS-quo" oriented vision and ISOC as a
secretariat;

- and face it with its multi-stakeholder (Gov, CS, Business and
multilateral) "market communities" forces, i.e. an "Open
Intelligent Use" coalition able to cooperate with it and possibly
others (the modern paradigm is to foster competition) on an equal footing
basis.

cf.

https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Internet_Society_openness_and_susstainability-en.pdf

OpenIUse coalition

We, IUsers (IUCG@IETF), will read the documents that ISOC is to
produce, as we would read any other business proposal. We are not in
opposition but in the responsible buyer evaluation process of concerning
a seriously prepared evolution of a broad worldwide success that
has:

-          produced a
"huge bounty"

-          but also
participated in our current economic and trust crisis.

In order to best proceed, this process could be embodied in:

a)      three “neutral by openness”
initiatives:

-          an “OpenIUse”
wiki where everyone can share in the common evaluation process of what,
technical or not, will be proposed,

-          a WIKIGF where
the various possible technical and IUse sides can document their
propositions and specifications on an equal footing.

-          a working Brazil
Summit preparation wiki.

b)      a doctrinal clarification effort (that
could lead to an IUCG independent contribution RFC) on the cyberspace
architectonic concordance (complete architectural, operational and secure
compatibility) in order to agree on the ways to make a people centered,
multi-architectural, multilingual, multicultural, extended services and
semiotic oriented innovative internet work better.

OpenIUse focus

I suppose our focus in reading the ISOC contribution will be on
three main points:

1. the proposed scheme's reconsideration process concerning technical
changes, precautions and respect of subsidiarity that may be asked. This
is the matter of my RFC 6852 appeal, so ISOC will have to answer this
openly.

2. the way the "huge bounty" would be shared. Since the
networks’ earliest days (Doug Engelbart, Minitel, Tymnet), we
experimented three partaking methods:

-          among some (the
technical development sponsors), in order to "augment"
their capacities.

-          as
"commons" belonging to all and, therefore, managed by
Governments,

-          to
"extend" the digital capacity of every person, as
proclaimed by the WSIS in calling for a people centered information
society.

3. the architectonical esthetic of the Digisphere that the proposal will
pursue and the resulting ethitechnics it will respect in order to protect
the Human Digital Right to get:

-          the HR respected
throughout the whole digital ecosystem,

-          a drastic
reduction of the digital divide

-          the most adequate
architectural design

-          open cyberspace
technology

-          openuse of every
technology

-          equal access
through the support of every language

-          equal respect of
every culture.

Special consideration will most probably paid to the protection of :

-          private,
economic, and public secrecy

-          the intellectual
rights and interests of the people in the architectonical Intelligent Use
of the different technologies, data resources, normative agreements, by
the people for the people (what some call "brainware", as a
societal stratum continuation of the technology hardware and software
strata)

-          most of all, the
permitted and managed cooperative capacity for innovation in all these
areas.

---

From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:14:29 +0100

http://www.thejakartapost.com/bali-daily/2013-10-24/cyber-ethics-restoring-trust-internet-crucial.html

FYI