Thanks JFC!

[Sent from my tiny screen wireless device. Excuse mobile brevity and or
unintended typos]
On Jul 14, 2013 2:40 AM, "jefsey" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Dear Members,
>
> I appealed the IESG and now the IAB concerning RFC 6852. You will find
> all the documentation on this appeal and the related debate at
> http://architf.org. The site is under preparation, the mailing list is
> open.
>
>
> *Why this appeal?
>
> *My main point is that RFC 3935 had stated that the mission of IAB, IETF,
> and IRTF were to influence those who design, use, and manage the Internet
> in a way so that *it works better*. This was an absolute target and,
> therefore, an architectonic target (belonging to the construction of the
> world, in this case of the digisphere). RFC 6852 changes that. The IABn
> IETF, IEEE, W3C and ISOC standardization paradigm is market economy
> related.
>
> This is not bad news. It could could foster some more innovations.
> However, it is a relative target.
> No replacement is provided at the top layer of our concerns : we do we
> digitally want?. This is just not considered as long as all of us keep
> happily purchasing.
>
>
> *Risk of radical monopoly
>
> *This means that we run into the risk of organizing a *radical monopoly*if it is not encapsulated within an adequate multiconsensual framework
> where the top layers’ concerns are addressed in a current, appropriate way
> (actually before RFC 6852 only a few had identified the risk resulting from
> the fact thath the first human made "universal" [like cosmos, life, etc.]
> had no plan. No one in the cockpit: implicitly everyone thought that the
> IAB wise men were in control. Actually, they are not).
>
> According to Wikipedia, a *radical monopoly* (Ivan Illich) results from
> the dominance of one type of product rather than the dominance of one
> brand. One speaks about a radical monopoly when one industrial production
> process exercises exclusive control over the satisfaction of a pressing
> need, and *excludes nonindustrial activities* from competition.
>
> At this stage, RFC 6852 calls on the inclusion of every SDO (technical
> standardization organizations). If we were to forget the regalian domain,
> civil society, and international organizations‘ and others stakeholders'
> normative rights, the monopoly over the digital global commons and global
> ecosystem stewardship would progressively drift toward the members of the
> "OpenStand" agreement (the text of RFC 6852). (http://open-stand.org).
> Exclusively, the industry and the engineers.
>
>
> *My Civil Society open proposition
>
> *My Civil Society based proposition is for an "NDO" (norms documentation
> organization) *open debate* on the way to address the main question:
> “what is the digital world that we want and how do we manage to control
> what we will get?”.
>
> Why do I speak of norms and not of standards or agreements? This is the
> confusion from which we suffer. Norms describe what we have or want.
> Standards describe how we want to obtain it. Agreement are over the way we
> use what we got. The digisphere is made of several architectures in
> different areas in order to address a large diversity of needs. The debate
> that I am calling for is to discuss the normative esthetic that we want for
> it.
>
> -  The WSIS stated that it had to be people centered.
> -  RFC 6852 states that it has to consider market economics.
> -  My personal goal is for everything to work better for everyone.
>
>
> *My goal is not a dream
>
> *This is not a dream; it is a different layer that humanity has never had
> to consider before. Up to now, from ancient Greece, politicians were to
> manage the City and insure and protect its internal and external peace
> through judiciary and military powers. Now, we have to be careful about the
> way we build the City’s environment, so that we do not build a City where
> people would face conflicts due to our past bugs. Like, for example, with
> global warming. We have to consider the digital and e-societal pollution
> that we may create.
>
> This kind of care results from the *precautionary principle*. It states
> that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the
> public <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_public>, to the environment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment>, or to the
> *future*, in the absence of scientific and political consensus<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus>that the action or policy is harmful, the burden
> of proof <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof> that it is *
> not* harmful falls on those taking an act. In Europe, this is a
> constitutional duty (Lisbon Treaty) together with the *duty to undertake
> preventive action*, in which rectification at the source is a priority
> and that the origin of the harm should pay. It was crafted for the natural
> environment, but in France at least, as a part of the constitutional block,
> its spirit applies to every law and obviously applies also to the
> artificial cyberspace environment.
>
>
> *A foreseen human step ahead
>
> *Because this is new, and we have never had architectonical duties aside
> from the human, political, judiciary, and military duties, we have to
> invent a process together. It is to involve Governments, International
> organizations, private sector, and Civil Society members. Moreover, we have
> to be aware that if the needs come from technology, as an active aisle of
> human development, it concerns everything and everyone: constitutions,
> economy, money, cultures, sovereignty, etc.
>
> We have known and tried to delay its implications, from the very
> beginning, from Dr. Lessig’s famous "Code is law": "In a critical sense, we
> Americans are not democrats anymore. Cyberspace has shown us this, our
> passivity in the face of its change confirms this. Both should push us to
> figure out why."
>
> That we are not democrats anymore is true for all of us, and not only due
> to our passivity. Networking permits a complex society, i.e. a society
> where *dialogue* (two people) and *dialectic* (two ideas for a synthesis)
> are replaced by *multilogue* (many people with many people, extending the
> familial “polylogue”) and *polylectic* (many ideas, messages, and
> information collapsing together). We have entered into polycracy.
>
>
> *This step ahead is necessary
>
> *And, remember, the top layer of our global polycratic process has no
> dedicated structure or doctrine.
>
> All this is because architectures lead us. Richard Fuller said “In order
> to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the
> problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete”:
> this is why RFC 6852 is adequate in documenting a new paradigm for the
> making of an architecture. This is also why it now has to be completed and
> given a framework for telling the way our new architectures' esthetics are
> to be decided. This way we will be able to agree on the ethics to respect
> in order to technically best implement the consensually desired esthetics.
> In this process, the role of the multiple stakeholders (people, users,
> politicians, lawyers, strategists) is not to replace the engineers in
> designing their machines but rather to inform them of their consensual
> requirements and guidance.
>
> You will find all the documentation on this appeal and the related debate
> at http://architf.org.
>
> jfc
>