[hackerspaces] Internet Governance Outlook 2017: Nationalistic Hierarchies vs. Multistakeholder Networks?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[hackerspaces] Internet Governance Outlook 2017: Nationalistic Hierarchies vs. Multistakeholder Networks?

willi uebelherr
for information

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Internet Governance Outlook 2017: Nationalistic Hierarchies vs.
Multistakeholder Networks?
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:45:44 -0300
From: willi uebelherr <[hidden email]>
To: IGF gov <[hidden email]>
CC: ISOC Internet Policy <[hidden email]>, IGF dc
<[hidden email]>, IGF dc ctu
<[hidden email]>, IGF dc civ
<[hidden email]>

Internet Governance Outlook 2017: Nationalistic Hierarchies vs.
Multistakeholder Networks?
By Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Jan 06, 2017
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160106_internet_outlook_2017_nationalistic_hierarchies_multistakeholder/

Dear friends,

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter has made an outlook on the year 2017 and looks
scared at the strengthening of regional self-control, which he calls
"Nationalistic Hierarchies". But he ignores today's "Inter-Nationalistic
hierarchies", which also work with "multistakeholder networks".

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, whom I estimate very highly, is strictly
interested in an open Internet based on "multistakeholder networks". And
that's what he does. But he does not see the snares that he put itself
at his feet.

IANA Transition and the Chinese Cybersecurity Law

In the text is asserted that the IANA Transition is a "bottom-up" and
the Chinese Law a "top-down" development process. Of course, we can say
many things. But if we know a little bit about the USA, we know, that a
bottom-up method in the telecommunication will be impossible in the USA.
This, because the actors are the centralistic state and the centralistic
private groups. In such an environment a bottom-up process is impossible.

For China, where the telecommunication is a project of the society,
there it can be possible. Also in Russia and Iran. But never in Europe
today. And absolutly never in Germany today. The space of possibilities
for telecommunication is primary defined from the inner structure of a
society. Only if the actors don't have his private interests, that are
oriented against the other actors, they can really cooperate.

In China and Russland and Iran they can transform the connection
infrastructure to a net-structure, the base condition for a bottom-up
development process in the telecommunication. For Europe and North
America with his fighter groups every one against all others it will be
impossible. Only if the Communities start as actors in the space of
community networks, then they can do it. This, because the
telecommunication stays for them in the foreground.

This activity space for an open telecommunication, a pre-condition for
the connectivity structure and the summary of all forms of
telecommunication like web-pages and data-files, audio/video streams,
telefon, radio and tv, brings us to a level that we can say: 3 types of
data (text, grafic, speech) and 2 forms of transport (asynchron, synchron).

Wolfgang wrote about "ideologically overloaded Internet Governance
language" and means China. But all documents from the IGF, what i have
read, are pure "ideologically overloaded Internet Governance language".
Never you find any conrete discussion about the basics of
telecommunication. You find only phraseology.

The Internet Governance Ecosystem as a "Virtual Rainforest"

I don't know, where Wolfgang live. But i know, we have to separate our
strong analysis of a real system and our dreams, our visions. I know,
without our dreams we will be unable to create our visions and
perspectives. Therefore, we can spaek about opportunities, that really
exist. But they remain opportunities and are unreal, virtual.

Then we can go deeper and look for the specific actors. We analyse her
interst and her bases of her being. Then we understand, what
opportunities we have with this actors.

This is the driving motor for the community networks. Because they see
clear, what space of activities they have with this real actors.
Therefore they create another space of actors with a much greater space
of opportunities.

The existence of diversity need the decentralisation and
parallelisation. In the nature, of course. But if we want to use our
methodology for centralisation in an act for diversity, we will fail.

US vs. China: Chances for a Digital Detente

The only risk of a "hot cyberwar" i see it in the USA. NSA, home
security and all this many security services. The most people on our
planet know it. How it is possible, that a high active person like
Wolfgang in the UN IGF environment don't know it? Maybe, he know, but
don't like it and create his virtual reality? Then he live in another
space. Outside of our space. I don't know where.

Wolfgang wrote about the "National Cyberspace Security Strategy" from
China "for treason, secession, revolt, subversion or stealing or leaking
of state secrets would be punished". But the same is valid for USA,
Canada, all european countries. We see it with Daniel Ellsberg, Eric
Snowden, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and many many others from so
many countries in all centuries. Go to the Wikipedia and search
Whistleblowers. Analyse her doing and her repression. Then we
understand, that this theme have no specific value for USA and China.

It is embedded in the general conflict between people and state. And
because the state act for the rich group in her region, the conflict is
between the poor and the rich people. Or, like Stiglitz say, between the
99% and the 1%.

And i will say very clear. As long as this UN IGF groups act in the same
separated space outside of the public space, based on her traditional
representative self-imagination, they will never be part of a creative
transition for our global interconnection in the telecommunication.

And endless chain of governmental and non-governmental negotiations
Summit Meetings

This is the only thing, what they have and for what they are interested.
It is based on the functions for what they are created.

Remaining Peace between ICANN and ITU?

"... 1000 new gTLDs ... 25 million with gTLD .. is not bad."

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter don't understand the principles of an open
telecommunication in form of an InterNet. Our focus are the ccTLDs and
not the private gTLDs to make domain business. But this is more a
question to our philosophy. Are we intersted to be slaves of some big
Dollar groups or are we intersted for an open global working
telecommunication. Every person itself have to find her answer.

The Key Role of the IGF

".. that the IGF has matured". I can say very clear NO. It is the same
"kindergarten" since his beginning. They act in a virtual space, are
driven from group egoism everywhere, are observers of observers ... and
don't have his own clear perspectives.

Of course, they have the potential to formulate clear principles of an
open globally telecommunication. But they don't like that to do. They
like more to act as soldiers for others.

We have the same situation in the ISOC, the Internet Society. It is
clear, this is a society without any specific relation to state, private
companies or governments. They act outside of this nationalism. Or
should do it.

UN IGF and ISOC can have a big power, if they are responsible to the
people and not to the power groups. With her regional chapters they can
help to distribute our discussions and proposals over the planet. But
today, we can say, they don't do it, because they don't like to do it.

Maybe, it is a result of her financial base for her event-tourism. But
if we work for telecommunication, we should start to use it for our
interaction and not to travel around the planet. We can reduce the
efforts and can opening the space on this way.

"... the failure of ACTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or the
Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Pact (TTIP) is the result of this
clash of cultures". This is a big nonsense. The diversity in our
local/regional cultures is the reality and we love it. And we need it.

The conflicts comes from small power groups against the world
population, the people on our planet in her different regions. And we
know, that today also the people in her region have not developed her
power for self-organising and self-determination. The regionale elites
act for the global elites and not for the local people.

".. discussing IOT related issues". There don't exist specific IOT
related issues. It exist issues to the routing mechanism based on the IP
addresses. If we use our intelligence for this issues we will never
organise this nonsense, what we have today.

...
Basket 4: Technology

".. the technological development as such has become an issue in
itself". I know, Wolfgang don't understand the technology. So, we have
to explain: The technology was and is always the base of
telecommunication. Therefore, for us, the technology always stay in the
center. And not the cheap chatters in any meetings or IGF proposals.

Looking Ahead: Everything is linked to Everything

Yes, dear Wolfgang. "We have to design global discussions and
negotiations" on telecommunication, and not on Internet Governance. If
we need Governance, then we make some errors.

"The Internet is a network of networks, connected via universal
technical protocols". No, Wolfgang. The protocols do nothing. The
interconnection, the transport of packets, do that. The protocols are
only necessary, that we do the same thing and understand, how the others
work.

The attempt of a resume

If we act on false bases then we are unable to find good solutions.
Independent, how strong we work. I you, Wolfgang, start with negation of
regional self-determination and act on the base of global top-down
formation then you will be never able to find good ways. Then you live
in a circle of self-explanations. You act in your own ideologic space
without the connection to the reality.

Of course, you can do it. And maybe, this is your job to do it.

The starting point for us is, that all people on our planet can use this
global telecommunication system to interconnect herself with any other
people on our planet. For what is her decision.

The easiest way to do that is the way of strong decentralisation. Then
the people in all and any region on our planet can create her part of
our global telecommunication. That all this people can independent act
we create our global network for free technology.

In the text to Internet Fragmentation, what you wrote together with
V.Cerf and W.Drake, you wrote about:
"From a technical standpoint, the original shared vision guiding the
Internet’s development was that every device on the Internet should be
able to exchange data packets with any other device that was willing to
receive them".

We know from Albert Einstein:
"The genius is always simple"

This principles we can follow. Why you, Wolfgang, follow this confusion
in the UN IGF, i don't understand.

Based on our physical interconnection we can implement very easy
mechanism, that the packets find her way through the routers.

With a decentralised DNS system based on ccTLDs it is very easy for us
to get any IP address from any host in any gloabal region.

In general, it is the responsiblity for the people in the different
regions to organise, what they need. And we, in the UN IGF and ISOC, and
i hope also in the World Social Forums, we can support the people
everywhere to do itself.

many greetings, willi
Asuncion, Paraguay

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [hackerspaces] Internet Governance Outlook 2017: Nationalistic Hierarchies vs. Multistakeholder Networks?

Edward L Platt-3
This is relevant to my interests, but can you (or anyone) provide more context?

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 4:52 PM, willi uebelherr <[hidden email]> wrote:
for information

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Internet Governance Outlook 2017: Nationalistic Hierarchies vs. Multistakeholder Networks?
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:45:44 -0300
From: willi uebelherr <[hidden email]>
To: IGF gov <[hidden email]>
CC: ISOC Internet Policy <[hidden email]>, IGF dc <[hidden email]>, IGF dc ctu <[hidden email]>, IGF dc civ <[hidden email]>

Internet Governance Outlook 2017: Nationalistic Hierarchies vs. Multistakeholder Networks?
By Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Jan 06, 2017
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160106_internet_outlook_2017_nationalistic_hierarchies_multistakeholder/

Dear friends,

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter has made an outlook on the year 2017 and looks scared at the strengthening of regional self-control, which he calls "Nationalistic Hierarchies". But he ignores today's "Inter-Nationalistic hierarchies", which also work with "multistakeholder networks".

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, whom I estimate very highly, is strictly interested in an open Internet based on "multistakeholder networks". And that's what he does. But he does not see the snares that he put itself at his feet.

IANA Transition and the Chinese Cybersecurity Law

In the text is asserted that the IANA Transition is a "bottom-up" and the Chinese Law a "top-down" development process. Of course, we can say many things. But if we know a little bit about the USA, we know, that a bottom-up method in the telecommunication will be impossible in the USA. This, because the actors are the centralistic state and the centralistic private groups. In such an environment a bottom-up process is impossible.

For China, where the telecommunication is a project of the society, there it can be possible. Also in Russia and Iran. But never in Europe today. And absolutly never in Germany today. The space of possibilities for telecommunication is primary defined from the inner structure of a society. Only if the actors don't have his private interests, that are oriented against the other actors, they can really cooperate.

In China and Russland and Iran they can transform the connection infrastructure to a net-structure, the base condition for a bottom-up development process in the telecommunication. For Europe and North America with his fighter groups every one against all others it will be impossible. Only if the Communities start as actors in the space of community networks, then they can do it. This, because the telecommunication stays for them in the foreground.

This activity space for an open telecommunication, a pre-condition for the connectivity structure and the summary of all forms of telecommunication like web-pages and data-files, audio/video streams, telefon, radio and tv, brings us to a level that we can say: 3 types of data (text, grafic, speech) and 2 forms of transport (asynchron, synchron).

Wolfgang wrote about "ideologically overloaded Internet Governance language" and means China. But all documents from the IGF, what i have read, are pure "ideologically overloaded Internet Governance language". Never you find any conrete discussion about the basics of telecommunication. You find only phraseology.

The Internet Governance Ecosystem as a "Virtual Rainforest"

I don't know, where Wolfgang live. But i know, we have to separate our strong analysis of a real system and our dreams, our visions. I know, without our dreams we will be unable to create our visions and perspectives. Therefore, we can spaek about opportunities, that really exist. But they remain opportunities and are unreal, virtual.

Then we can go deeper and look for the specific actors. We analyse her interst and her bases of her being. Then we understand, what opportunities we have with this actors.

This is the driving motor for the community networks. Because they see clear, what space of activities they have with this real actors. Therefore they create another space of actors with a much greater space of opportunities.

The existence of diversity need the decentralisation and parallelisation. In the nature, of course. But if we want to use our methodology for centralisation in an act for diversity, we will fail.

US vs. China: Chances for a Digital Detente

The only risk of a "hot cyberwar" i see it in the USA. NSA, home security and all this many security services. The most people on our planet know it. How it is possible, that a high active person like Wolfgang in the UN IGF environment don't know it? Maybe, he know, but don't like it and create his virtual reality? Then he live in another space. Outside of our space. I don't know where.

Wolfgang wrote about the "National Cyberspace Security Strategy" from China "for treason, secession, revolt, subversion or stealing or leaking of state secrets would be punished". But the same is valid for USA, Canada, all european countries. We see it with Daniel Ellsberg, Eric Snowden, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and many many others from so many countries in all centuries. Go to the Wikipedia and search Whistleblowers. Analyse her doing and her repression. Then we understand, that this theme have no specific value for USA and China.

It is embedded in the general conflict between people and state. And because the state act for the rich group in her region, the conflict is between the poor and the rich people. Or, like Stiglitz say, between the 99% and the 1%.

And i will say very clear. As long as this UN IGF groups act in the same separated space outside of the public space, based on her traditional representative self-imagination, they will never be part of a creative transition for our global interconnection in the telecommunication.

And endless chain of governmental and non-governmental negotiations
Summit Meetings

This is the only thing, what they have and for what they are interested. It is based on the functions for what they are created.

Remaining Peace between ICANN and ITU?

"... 1000 new gTLDs ... 25 million with gTLD .. is not bad."

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter don't understand the principles of an open telecommunication in form of an InterNet. Our focus are the ccTLDs and not the private gTLDs to make domain business. But this is more a question to our philosophy. Are we intersted to be slaves of some big Dollar groups or are we intersted for an open global working telecommunication. Every person itself have to find her answer.

The Key Role of the IGF

".. that the IGF has matured". I can say very clear NO. It is the same "kindergarten" since his beginning. They act in a virtual space, are driven from group egoism everywhere, are observers of observers ... and don't have his own clear perspectives.

Of course, they have the potential to formulate clear principles of an open globally telecommunication. But they don't like that to do. They like more to act as soldiers for others.

We have the same situation in the ISOC, the Internet Society. It is clear, this is a society without any specific relation to state, private companies or governments. They act outside of this nationalism. Or should do it.

UN IGF and ISOC can have a big power, if they are responsible to the people and not to the power groups. With her regional chapters they can help to distribute our discussions and proposals over the planet. But today, we can say, they don't do it, because they don't like to do it.

Maybe, it is a result of her financial base for her event-tourism. But if we work for telecommunication, we should start to use it for our interaction and not to travel around the planet. We can reduce the efforts and can opening the space on this way.

"... the failure of ACTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Pact (TTIP) is the result of this clash of cultures". This is a big nonsense. The diversity in our local/regional cultures is the reality and we love it. And we need it.

The conflicts comes from small power groups against the world population, the people on our planet in her different regions. And we know, that today also the people in her region have not developed her power for self-organising and self-determination. The regionale elites act for the global elites and not for the local people.

".. discussing IOT related issues". There don't exist specific IOT related issues. It exist issues to the routing mechanism based on the IP addresses. If we use our intelligence for this issues we will never organise this nonsense, what we have today.

...
Basket 4: Technology

".. the technological development as such has become an issue in itself". I know, Wolfgang don't understand the technology. So, we have to explain: The technology was and is always the base of telecommunication. Therefore, for us, the technology always stay in the center. And not the cheap chatters in any meetings or IGF proposals.

Looking Ahead: Everything is linked to Everything

Yes, dear Wolfgang. "We have to design global discussions and negotiations" on telecommunication, and not on Internet Governance. If we need Governance, then we make some errors.

"The Internet is a network of networks, connected via universal technical protocols". No, Wolfgang. The protocols do nothing. The interconnection, the transport of packets, do that. The protocols are only necessary, that we do the same thing and understand, how the others work.

The attempt of a resume

If we act on false bases then we are unable to find good solutions. Independent, how strong we work. I you, Wolfgang, start with negation of regional self-determination and act on the base of global top-down formation then you will be never able to find good ways. Then you live in a circle of self-explanations. You act in your own ideologic space without the connection to the reality.

Of course, you can do it. And maybe, this is your job to do it.

The starting point for us is, that all people on our planet can use this global telecommunication system to interconnect herself with any other people on our planet. For what is her decision.

The easiest way to do that is the way of strong decentralisation. Then the people in all and any region on our planet can create her part of our global telecommunication. That all this people can independent act we create our global network for free technology.

In the text to Internet Fragmentation, what you wrote together with V.Cerf and W.Drake, you wrote about:
"From a technical standpoint, the original shared vision guiding the Internet’s development was that every device on the Internet should be able to exchange data packets with any other device that was willing to receive them".

We know from Albert Einstein:
"The genius is always simple"

This principles we can follow. Why you, Wolfgang, follow this confusion in the UN IGF, i don't understand.

Based on our physical interconnection we can implement very easy mechanism, that the packets find her way through the routers.

With a decentralised DNS system based on ccTLDs it is very easy for us to get any IP address from any host in any gloabal region.

In general, it is the responsiblity for the people in the different regions to organise, what they need. And we, in the UN IGF and ISOC, and i hope also in the World Social Forums, we can support the people everywhere to do itself.

many greetings, willi
Asuncion, Paraguay

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



--
Edward L. Platt
PhD student, University of Michigan School of Information
KC1DYK

Tips for stopping email overload: https://hbr.org/2012/02/stop-email-overload-1

This digital electronic mail message was sent from my general-purpose desktop personal computing machine.  Please forgive any overly-verbose, long-winded, rambling prose.

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Loading...