[arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience

Dear architecture-discuss (Brian and Others),

The term "strategy" reminds me about readings may be related:

- If we go along with "cyberspace" at least there is D.D. Clark et all's
"Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow's Internet" (IEEE/ACM Transactions
on Networking, 2005)

It considered "Cyberspace", tussle and the evolution of the network's
technical architecture. It is referred in the present draft of "End Users"
by M. Nottingham.

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/Tussle%
20in%20Cyberspace%20Defining%20Tomorrows%20Internet%202005's%20Internet.pdf

- by the term "space" of "cyberspace" we may come to a reading Jean
Hillier's "Strategic Spatial Planning: a Multiplanar Methodology for
Strategic Spatial Planning" (EspacesTemps.net, 2015) discussing
"...strategic spatial planning in conditions of indeterminacy or
uncertainty..." For its reference to a particular way of thinking language,
a postructuralist way --and we remember that Internet may be understood as
networks of languages-- I suppose this reading is contemporaneous... It
developed a multiplanar methodology...

https://www.espacestemps.net/en/articles/strategic-navigation/

Regard,
Guntur Wiseno Putra

Pada Selasa, 31 Desember 2019, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> menulis:

> On 31-Dec-19 01:04, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> >
> >> Il 30/12/2019 12:35 Christian <cdel@firsthand.net> ha scritto:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Vittorio,
> >>
> >> I don't understand your objections.
> >>
> >> Are they?
> >
> > This is not yet another discussion on DoH - yes I have problems with how
> it is being deployed, though mostly different from the ones you list(*),
> but this is not the topic here. The discussion is rather about the IETF's
> pretense not to be making Internet policy (DoH is just an example where
> this pretense has been widely challenged)
>
> Sorry, I don't get it. I've taken my own decision about DoH policy, by
> using a browser that
> has a mechanism for avoiding DoH, because I think it puts power over the
> integrity of the namespace into the wrong hands. Other people, in other
> geographies, might have an opposite policy. Many end users may not even
> know that they have a policy choice. This is utterly outside the control of
> the IETF.
>
> Earlier, you wrote:
>
> >> But, as I said, the need for global Internet policies will not go away
> just because we do not know how to fulfill it - they will just be decided
> in other ways, a huge private oligopoly being the most likely and the
> scariest one.
>
> Welcome to capitalism. Except that a large part of the policy landscape is
> set geographically by varying political systems, so what we actually have
> is a very complex interplay between various transnational oligopolies and
> ~200 political systems. Again, utterly outside the control of the IETF.
>
> In this environment, designing for resilience seems like a wise strategy.
>
>    Brian
>
> > and about the idea of global Internet policy-making processes.
> >
> >
> > (*) if you're interested in this, here is a recent panel discussion with
> multiple views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1yMZEAvS3M
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>