Very illuminating piece! We're currently facing the same dilemma over here, a sneaky back-door takeover (illegal as per the Kenya Information and Communications Act) of our National Registry by a commercial interests club TESPOK (Telecommunications Services Providers of Kenya). http://www.wanjiku.co.ke/2012/08/kenic-ceo-fires-first-salvo-at-govt-terminates-all-employees/ On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:54 PM, JFC Morfin <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dar 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 [log in to unmask] 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) [log in to unmask] 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 >