Re: [Ianaplan] ietf93 "agenda"

[JFC Morfin <[e-mail]>]

At 19:49 06/07/2015, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>We have scheduled an IANAPLAN WG session at IETF93 in Prague as a
>placeholder in case there are relevant topics to discuss with respect to
>the integration of the proposals from the three communities (names,
>numbers, protocols).  If such material becomes available, we'll post
>an updated agenda.  Otherwise, we will cancel the session.

Dear all,

The only way I can positively contribute is to summarize my analysis 
here. The practical architectonical problem remains the same: the 
creation and integration need of a fourth non-internet dedicated 
community (the digital use to be co-authoritatively-documented by its users).

More generally, up to now, use protection and representation was in 
some manner assumed by the IAB, as those ensuring the usability 
consistency. The IANAPLAN Draft cancels the ICANN accountability to 
the IAB. This comes after RF 6852 pragmatically described the only 
existing accountability mechanism as being the global community 
markets innovation race.

I am sorry, but I do not see any other solution than one that is based upon:

1. the current emergence of political/commercial global communities 
and coalitions phenomena.

E.g. ICANN/WEF, the LIBRE community that I promote (LIBRE being 
capitalized to show it is LIBRE from Libre solutions as well - in a 
LIBRE network system, everyone is to be interconnected), national 
BRICS and EU evolutions, consumers communities by the GAFAMs, etc.

This was enacted for the Internet by RFC 923, but delayed by 30 years 
by the "military industrial complexe" (McDD) when as a result they 
closed my department in 1986.

2. the correction of the possible architectonical possible errors.

The NTIA disengagement evidences the American BUG (acting as "Being 
Unilaterally Global" in a meshed system) that we considered as a 
feature, as we all benefited from the NTIA as a tutor for the "UNIX 
correct" culture.

- what has been done or observed (RFC 6852, NTIA Transition analysis, 
Snowdenia, etc. ) shows that the issue is "below" the Internet 
architecture stratum (i.e. architectonical) and it also affects other 
communications architectures that develop (NDN, SDN, meshed networks, 
etc.) over the common Catenet stratum, but also the entire world 
(Crisis). IMHO, this is the foreseen technological singularity at the 
announced time, but different from Kurzweil's vision.

- the identification of the problem as a BUG to solve, gives some 
hope. Because a bug is a bug, and its fixing will eventually prevail. 
So the solution is not political, or economic, but technical. It 
calls for thinking and experimenting, not for money and power. This 
is something that LIBRE can do.

The first question is, therefore, how to proceed in restoring to its 
proper stratum the full use of a politically/economically constrained 
technical model? This is the purpose of the CLASS "FL" (Free/LIBRE) 
experimentation for the Catenet (i.e. independently from the used 
architecture but in complying with community accepted experimentation 
limitations).

3. the IETF/IAB trust vs.US/NSA influences.

This problem is universal. Every RFC 6852 Global Community's SDOs 
will be suspected of favoring its own Community Surveillance Agency 
and/or to be penetrated by others. This was the WCIT Dubai vote background.

IMHO, the only solution to that is omnistakeholderism. This means a 
permissionless innovation coopetition or competition aiming at the 
individual user, not as a consumer but rather as a decision maker. 
This means a general evolution toward an intellectual man/bot 
societal mix to be conceptually accepted and enacted (the 
technological singularity is not in technology with "logy" as in 
mechanical "logic" but as in meshed "logos".

This means that computer languages (software) are to be completed by 
a computer open relational capacity (meshware, protocols, Netix, 
mecalinguistics [mechanical language]) capable of being adequately 
entangled in the human+AI reflectional (networked) capacity (brainware).

4. Linguistics Implications

My disagreement with the IETF orthodoxy results from my belief that 
UNIX is not the network core, but rather the mechanically extended 
human cerebrics. This means that the digital network fluidity are not 
at the protocol sets strata but rather at the multilinguistics 
strata, i.e. linguistics + mecalinguistics cybernetic integration.

In other words: human languages are used for thinking, relating, 
comprehending, and coordinating together. Computer languages are for 
processing (thinking), communicating (exchanging, not yet relating), 
and are not semantically/culturally supported enough as yet to do 
more. This leads to multilinguistics as a forth semiotics dimension: 
the cybernetics of languages.
*       Mecalanguages have to be cybernetic, i.e. action/reaction 
based: one actor involved. No one else. This is the "absent middle" 
monolectic syllogistic. Whatever the circumstances, the response of a 
computer will always be the same.

*       Natural languages are not monolectic but dialectic, i.e. 
thesis + anti-thesis = synthesis. This is the "excluded middle" logic 
that we have lived with for 2,500 years.


*       Complexity means meshed simplicity (RFC 3439): end to end 
simplicity is dialectic. RFC 1958 states that extensions are to be 
pre/post/side-performed at the fringe. Diversity is the entrance into 
complexity: it must be handled at the fringe (RFC 5895, of which the 
unusual "off the wire" specification actually introduces subsidiarity 
as a basic principle of the Internet Use architecture). This 
addresses the "non-excluded middles/outsiders" networking problematic 
that was experimented and addressed by Tymnet's routing and cloud 
designers under the "agoric" term.

This is why Multilinguistics' cybernetics is, aside from semantics, 
pragmatics, and syntax, a fourth semiotic area for networked language 
networking for the man/bot compounded (anthropobotic) society.

When considering this, one better understands the respective works on 
a content transportation architecture and on a general relational 
support. Until now, the focus was on the first need, in which RFC 
6852 and the IANPLAN draft tells the IETF consensual manner to 
approach the second one.

I consider that both memos are incomplete because they imply that the 
impact of competition between RFC 6852 Global Communities is to be 
addressed as when the American BUG supported by the NTIA feature was 
enacted, even when the NTIA is transitioning out, instead of 
considering the many ways to replace it by a jointly supported coopetition.

As a result, the priority of the main work ahead is not the way in 
which networked computers will better or more profitably work, but 
rather the way they will nterrelate with us and among them to help us 
better relate together.


Since the internet is a leading artificial grammar that is being used 
on the catenet (i.e. every local digital resource that is globally 
shared), this work will include its full support. It will also 
include its extension to other language/grammars as in the case of 
NDN, SDN, meshed network, French, Chinese, Russian, and all of David 
Dalby's linguasphere.