Re: [iucg] further to your response

[JFC Morfin <[e-mail]>]

At 00:27 09/08/2013, Russ Housley wrote:

JFC:
No one has ever appealed to the ISOC BoT.  I do not think it will help your case to do so.  Rather, as the appeal suggests, I encourage you to start a dialogue with the IESG and the IAB about the next steps with OpenStand.

Dear Russ,
I thank you for this. And I will certainly engage such a dialog that progressively clarifies, in my mind, as being between the "OpenStand" and an "OpenUse" points of view:
 
- OpenStand being (IP) architecture – software – standards and end to end interoperability oriented.
- OpenUse being architectonic (the whole context and the comparative rationales [deeper layers than politics and strategies] of different architectures being used in building a world digital ecosystem - ex. RINA as an example) – at least brainware and all the potential complements/alternatives to IP – specifications and fringe to fringe interintelligibility oriented.

That said, RFC 2026 says this about appeals to the ISOC Board of Trustees:
6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure

   Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures
   themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are
   claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the
   rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process.
   Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of
   Trustees.  The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge
   such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of
   acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the
   Trustees' review of the appeal.  The Trustees shall review the
   situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on
   the outcome of its review.

   The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final
   with respect to all aspects of the dispute.

I will then be the first one...

My concern is about the time frame (must I appeal within two months [before Sept 17]?). The mail address of Bob Hinden I used does not seem to work. If this mail does not go through (this is why I use an ack) I will contact ISOC and ask for the way in which I can reach him. It is up to him I suppose to organize and inform me how to proceed.

jfc

----

PS. Bob, I suppose I need to better explain at this stage what I am looking for in appealing ISOC and why.

IMHO, both OpenStand and OpenUse are complementary but cannot be considered as different complete layers of the architectonic pile we start discerning, and they are at different development stages and result from what I see as a (natural and necessary at this stage of the digital development) societal fork between people and business centered legitimate and complementary missions.

OpenStand is a gathering of five, well-established historic bodies, plus followers which also are established operations. OpenUse is a concept in limbo that is still underlying everwhere and pushed by a few people like me with their own agenda (mine being IUse [intelligent use] and the future Intersem [semiotic internet and intercomprehension facilitation] - others' being cyberdefense, e-sovereignty or different forms of “relational spaces” or political control).

I/we all need this to clarifies in the open (you chose "OpenStand" as a name). Therefore, my current target is threefold:

1. to make OpenStand speak as a single organized group, through the appeal procedure that is (so far) its only established/documented united interface with the rest of us.

2. to oblige OpenStand to speak for the future; thus far it has spoken for the past (analyzing its de facto paradigm). How you intend to articulate your mission toward the global community markets and your "adequate and sufficient protection of the rights of all parties in a fair and open end to end Internet Standards Process".  We are not anymore in a space-time world, but in a four dimensions business and political world with counterwar stakes (what I do not do or permit today may permit an inflexion in norms/standards that will cost all of us or a stakeholder category a lot “sometimes” – this sometimes being to be more and more consistently thought and dealt with as any other current “somewhere”). I experimented and won that kind of pseudo-symetric warfare in lang-tags and IDNA, an area where Ray Kurzwell tries to maintain the Google-spell. There are other ones ahead, unless we mutually agree to discuss before fighting them.

3. to help OpenUse to identify itself and to be identified by all as a thinking necessity and a debate that is:
    - neither an OpenStand alternative standardization process,
    - nor an end-user society alternative to ISOC
    - nor a people's claim for e-sovereignty alternative to the UN and Govs,
    - nor an alternative to ISO as a maintainer of the global normative concordance.

The understanding of the digisphere and cyberspace has changed and is bound to keep evolving. This means that the ISOC architectural culture is not only going to adapt, but also to expand to new architectures, standards, uses, practices, and usages, and confront other architectures.

Thus far,

1. Good point: OpenStand corresponds to the removal of the IAB from its de facto architectonic final arbitration. This means that:
    - (a) there is no attempt whatsoever to keep IP as a “radical monopoly” (as per Ivan Illitch) and
    - (b) there is a need for the creation of an independent architectonic review board to help the interachitectural dialog that you have suggested to me in order to start with the IESG and IAB.
    In ths appeal, I am only JFC Morfin. I need help and positive critiques to update the IUCG charter if it still is a good proposition and deploy the IUTF.

2. Good point: two of the three RFC 2026 OpenStand organizations have already answered this clarification need positively. This means that:
    - (a) my OpenUse appeals initiative do not interfere with the IETF and IAB areas of responsibilities,
    - (b) we should dialog together. Perfect, we all need the position of the third (ISOC) one.

3. Question mark: the structured appeal system ensuring that OpenStand has technological coherence in the end to end area:
    - (1) has never been tested yet (I will be the first one)
    - (2) includes:
       - neither the W3C (I architecturally consider it deals with an OSI layer 6 partial patch)
       - nor the new OpenStand signatories and the cooperation with the ITU.
       Does that mean that they are of non fundamental importance in the ISOC vision of the technological coherence?  This is something OpenUse would worry about as a fringe to fringe user on top of end to end.
    - (3) needs some clarification, as the IAB has not in its response to my appeal fully played (IMHO) its RFC 2870 role of adviser/guide of the network community.

4. Question mark: there is an overlap between:
   - the ISOC traditional relations with end-users and governments,
   - and the self-representation of end-users and IUsers (those having the capacity to change the Internet to suit their own immediate and operational needs) who port OpenUse political (hence diverse and sometimes controversial) concerns.

This is something that we (IUsers) already faced in the case of the “Internet Domain Name Owners” (IDNO) and of @larges. It led to controversy and to the lame ICANN policy and structural situation in the internet governance. An agreement on the role and preservation of ICANN within the Internet Governance should be a target between OpenStand and OpenUse. Also, should OpenUse target an multitechnology/multiuse network of chapters. I was denied my proposition of an ISOC IPv6 Use Chapter.

5. Question mark: an extended architectonic reading of the Internet architecture has resulted from the IDNA2008 RFCs (in particular RFC 5895, implying that the Internet architectural support of diversity [at least in the linguistic diversity case] can be by fringe subsidiarity).
- It enables the simultaneous support of several fringe to fringe architectures over the same (consolidated) end to end architecture.
- For clarity, I call these possible extended value complementary architectures under the generic name of “Internet+”, (my own “interplus” approach is an example implying the use of “plugged layers on the user side”). This possibility has been tested by several, in independent ways and for different services. Cacophony may result from it. This cacophony may lead to Internet type of services hijacks and/or important innovative developments. The OpenUse/OpenStand cooperation that Russ suggests should start there. Not to result in conflicts, IMHO, there is first the need to know where ISOC leans in this dia/multilog (on your both sides, on the intelligent use side, on other more/less comprehensive sides?).

(NB! One can clearly see the ISOC scaling difficulty in this example: the internet has become too large for a single organization to take care of one of its architectural points of view and to represent the users of the other [complementary or not] architectures).


Once this is clarified, the fundamental architectonic questions that could be raised and discussed are:

1. with the IAB/IESG, about “peri-IP” (whatever it may mean and is discussed) end to end architectures and active content fringe to fringe extended network/communications services?

2. with governments, about multinational sovereignties as in the case of Google behaving like a virtual ubiquitous e-State? and network technological neutrality? What about private registry and information system managers (PRISM)

3. with ISO and other NDOs, about the consistency of the general “architectony” (a default semantic frame of reference for the machines) wherein we need to base a new standardization effort at the (intersem) intercomprehension strata (asuperIANA for brains and thought intercomprehension).

4. with everyone interested, a multidisciplinary work on the Theory of Communication we all miss.

5. with everyone the e-colonization of the world (as per the Information Report to the French Senate by Senator Catherine MORIN-DESAILLY, March 20, 2013). You may access the IUCG compilation toward this debate at http://architf.org/" rel="nofollow">http://architf.org and the way OpenUse may insert itself in the WSIS international consensus for the Information society ( while OpenStand would look like a private sector led enhanced cooperation. http://iucg.org/wiki/WSISMAP-CARTESMSI" rel="nofollow"> http://iucg.org/wiki/WSISMAP-CARTESMSI).

Best
jfc

Russ


On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:04 AM, JFC Morfin wrote:

Dear Russ,

I kept working a little bit (http://architf.org/" rel="nofollow">http://architf.org) on the consequences of your stern and neutral response to my appeal regarding RFC 6852 ( http://www.iab.org/appeals/2013-2" rel="nofollow"> http://www.iab.org/appeals/2013-2). One never knows about the positive/negative impact of something in/on the future, so I have no comment. 

I only have now to complete my clarification endeavor in appealing the ISOC BoT against the IAB for disregarding its RFC 2850 mission and not providing guidance on a matter of importance for the Internet community and the JTC1 (/SC38, NWIP 881 - I suppose, I have not yet a copy of the US National Body Contribution). This will permit ISOC to formalize its position and complete the RFC 6852 text as far as the Internet nature and architecture are concerned in the architectonic debate.

I have looked around and I do not find any formal documentation on the ISOC appeal process. Could you, or Bob, help me with that information?

I thank you for this help. I apologize for disrupting your vacation, but I fear possible reglementary delays constraints and an ill timing with the ISOC and ICC strategies for the October 21, 2013 HLLM on the directly related global cyber ethic issues, as my interest is in a positive clarification and not in negative disruption.

Best regards
jfc morfin