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 >