Re: [iucg] [discuss] Utopia was Re: [] Survey

[Jefsey <[e-mail]>]

At 11:15 05/03/2014, Avri Doria wrote:
>Calling it Utopian, or worse, and deprecating it in various ways 
>does not change that.  Sovereignty as currently understood has been 
>a limited success - just looking at the daily papers and the movable 
>permanent wars should be enough to convince anyone.  We need to 
>figure out how to do better.  And this movement on the Internet, a 
>new way for global society to interact directly, is the best 
>alternative I know of at this point in time.

Dear Avri,

I am afraid you miss a fundamental point. Democracy appeared in 
Athens. Its contribution was the "nomos", i.e. the law voted by the 
people (actually some people). This nomos came in addition to the 
Themis (natural law) and patria (families best practices). This was a 
way to organise (architectonics) and harden the city from the 
interior (cohesion among citizens) and be more structured and 
prepared at the exterior. These tasks were distributed along three 
archons: Eponymous (also the chief of state - Aristote introduced 
architectonics, i.e. the architecture of all the architectures, as 
the supreme political art),  Basileus for interior issues,  and 
Polemach for external sovereignty (i.e. the field where only Themis 
applies and your army can protect you against violence).

1. the city's internal fundamental law does not change anything in 
terms of external affairs which is our field.
2. the nature of architectonics has changed: we do not only have to 
manage the land, seas, air and outer space, we also have to manage 
the cyber space, and more complicate and out of capacity of the 
political art we have to *build* it, and build it globally what can 
only be done on an MS basis, except if one state colonizes or invades 
all the others. Is that what you mean when you talk of democracy?

So, references to your political feelings are off context. We are in 
a pure Themis/natural law context. If someone does not goes by the 
treaties, conventions or covenants it/he/she signed, there is only 
one alternative: acceptance or war. For the time being the majority 
of the States have signed a treaty. Sao Paulo is to see how the 
minority (which happens to be in position of relative strength) could 
settle a working compromise with the majority.

You cannot do anything to change that. Except, change the world or 
humanity. Dreams (Utopia) cannot help, except in giving ideas or 
suggesting a aesthetics, hence ethics to better proceed. However, no 
one is prepared to receive ethics lessons or even suggestions from 
the USA at this time. So, the only possibility left is to change the 
digital world. This is not immediately possible (cost too much, and 
there is no consensus, most of the leading forces [USG/US and others 
TNCs] being in favor of a status-quo which looks at their immediate 
advantage).

However, what is possible is to change the leaders' perception of the 
world. In the hope they are clever enough to understand faster than 
the full demonstration of an implementation that might economical 
conflicts or losses for them (nobody wants to oppose, just to help 
people understanding where their best interest lies, in spite of the 
"experts" says). We have introduced such a change in the perception: 
the one which was planned from the very beginning as the second 
motivation of the internet. Yes, it opposes the current leadership 
status-quo strategy because it structurally treats every MS on a 
technical equal footing, whatever the use, the language, the 
technology, the economy. Yes it is "0net" in  removing every internet 
technology non neutral non transparent advantage. Yes it is not 
accepted by outdated gurus of the first motivation phase. However, 
cute responsible people know the internet project ultimate target. 
They know that the tools are here. They know they cannot block 
innovation too long. They know that the majorities of states is ready 
to move in if they are proven their technical trust has also been 
betrayed. So, now it is up to the decision makers to decide. Is it 
Obama's job to sovereignly rule my old file, the networks reality 
independently more accurately produce in 10 minutes with my old 
tools? I am sure that many round the world do it faster!

Obviously the DNSA will exist. Obviously not in the way it is 
discussed today. As a VGN, TLD, name_holder association, supported by 
an international small and cheap secretariat. Government are not much 
interested in domain names, as long as they do not hamper their 
industry and their social peace. They are much more interested in 
what may weak their cyber warfare capacity, and the protection of 
their citizen. E-Democracy in other countries does not preoccupy them 
as much as the fact that, if the NSA was able to spy the US citizens 
themselves, the US technology is very vulnerable and no secret is 
secure in a world where you can be penetrated by the NSA and a civil 
contractor can disseminate your secrets so easily, together with 1.7 
millions of other secret files.

Frankly, Covs are still more worried because the secrets the NSA 
stole them through the internet, were not protected at the NSA. This 
definitely kills the idea of any international governance agency or 
organization where US security could have a responsibility. How could 
191 countries trust it?

Sorry, let get real. In an MS environment there is no king, no 
president, no votes. Only running code. Please develop or chose your 
running code. As we are doing. We will see what kind of governance 
may emerge from this zero blah blah MS globalized decision on an 
equal keyboard typing.

Best!
jfc