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

Edward L Platt ed at elplatt.com
Sun Jan 22 22:57:47 CET 2017

This is relevant to my interests, but can you (or anyone) provide more

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 4:52 PM, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net
> 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 <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
> To: IGF gov <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> CC: ISOC Internet Policy <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>, IGF dc <
> dc at intgovforum.org>, IGF dc ctu <dc_connectingtheunconnected at i
> ntgovforum.org>, IGF dc civ <values at coreinternetvalues.org>
> 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
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Edward L. Platt
PhD student, University of Michigan School of Information
@elplatt <http://twitter.com/elplatt>

Tips for stopping email overload:

This digital electronic mail message was sent from my general-purpose
desktop personal computing machine.  Please forgive any overly-verbose,
long-winded, rambling prose.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20170122/920969b3/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list