Subject: Re: [arch-d] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 15:51:31 +0100

> On 25 Jan 2020, at 12:58 am, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark,
> At 09:36 PM 23-01-2020, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you mean. I don't see a literal question mark near the reference in the published text document.
> 
> Sorry for not being clear.  There isn't a literal question mark.  I'll try and explain the point.  There is the following text: "We embrace technical concepts such as decentralized control ..."  The reality is that the "control" has moved in the opposite direction, i.e. there is centralization.   The "social good" is being challenged because of significant cases of misuse.  The misuse range from the impact on the individual to impact at country level.

Ah. I agree that centralisation is a concern, and the IAB has been talking about it quite a bit recently.

>> As explained elsewhere in the document, we don't rely on end users coming to present their case in person, as it were.
> 
> On whom does the IAB rely on to present the case?
> 
> Is it the governments which represent the users as that is usually what governments do?  There is text in the draft which states that it is not automatic.  Is it the advocacy groups which participate in the Internet Engineering Task Force?  Is it the engineer who participates in the Internet Engineering Task Force?

I'm a bit confused by your line of questioning here. Section 4.1 explains why we need to account for users' needs, but shouldn't expect users to just show up and represent them. So, it suggests some ways we might improve over the status quo. 

No one person or organisation represents' users needs; it's much more complex than that.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2020 15:18:07 -0800

Hi Mark,
At 06:51 AM 01-02-2020, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>I'm a bit confused by your line of questioning here. Section 4.1 
>explains why we need to account for users' needs, but shouldn't 
>expect users to just show up and represent them. So, it suggests 
>some ways we might improve over the status quo.
>

I apologize for the strong reply and the line of questioning.  The 
questions which I sent were difficult ones.  It is, as you mentioned, 
a complex matter.

Some parts in Section 4.1 are about accounting for users' needs by 
engaging with groups which are representative of the users.  Such an 
approach would not unfeasible.  One way in which organizations tackle 
that is to identify some form of representativity where users are 
represented under civil society.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Guntur Wiseno Putra <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 13:50:15 +0700

Dear S. Monesamy, Mark &
architecture-discuss,

Representativity of the Internet Users as Individuals, Organization and
civil society is about Legitimacy...?

The Internet and Individuals as users in a network society...:  may it not
help to arrive at such an understanding of representativity and
legitimacy...?

"An Individual/person, by network society with ICTs as a structural matrix
of experiences, of meanings and values, is a momentous synthesis, or a
conflict domain --there may be still existed conflicts accompanying her/his
choices of acts--, of networks of things/languages with/for/to/among which
s/he celebrates/affirmes her/his life/existence..".

I said so --with additions here-- in in messages in the thread " Possible
new IAB program on Internet trust model evolution" of this
architecture-discuss list

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/CIlb9iJRv-4m7gUeK8dGiVAEJts

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/9oNuNqcJa4POZPWasivW7iKSqEY

Regard,
Guntur Wiseno Putra

Pada Minggu, 02 Februari 2020, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> menulis:

>> I'm a bit confused by your line of questioning here. Section 4.1 explains
>> why we need to account for users' needs, but shouldn't expect users to just
>> show up and represent them. So, it suggests some ways we might improve over
>> the status quo.
>>
> questions which I sent were difficult ones.  It is, as you mentioned, a
> complex matter.
>
> approach would not unfeasible.  One way in which organizations tackle that
> is to identify some form of representativity where users are represented
> under civil society.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2020 00:21:50 -0800

Dear Guntur,
At 10:50 PM 01-02-2020, Guntur Wiseno Putra wrote:
>Representativity of the Internet Users as Individuals, Organization 
>and civil society is about Legitimacy...?

Yes.

>The Internet and Individuals as users in a network society...:  may 
>it not help to arrive at such an understanding of representativity 
>and legitimacy...?

The short answer is no.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Guntur Wiseno Putra <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 20:54:57 +0700

Dear S. Moonesamy &
architecture-discuss,

May we say about "building trust for legitimacy to represent", "legitimacy
to represent for trust"...? --as one is legitimated when another or others
trust(s) to that one (her/him)...?

Such basic understandings below may help to arrive at a notions of "trust"
in the Internet which is about networks of computers, of communications, of
languages (1).

Networks of Interests (of meanings and values): Trusts and Distrusts...

- when the interests are understood/accepted by either/all parties involved
there are (networks of) trusts.

- when the interests are not understood/accepted by either/all parties
involved there are (networks of) distrusts.

Should we note that there are in-between areas made possible by those
"either" in those points above, which is about as non-total trust well as
non-total distrust --it is supposedly about "degrees" of "little",
"enough", "much"...

In relation to "individuals in a network society", especially to "the
Internet users as individuals in a network society"--as mentioned in the
previous message--, the problem of "legitimacy for representativity"  is
about how building trust for legitimacy to represent (2). Thus we may say
about "networked representativity".

(1)  so it is about identifying critical points of security: those threats
and trusts --actual and potential. It is related with my previous message
at this architecture-discuss list "Possible new IAB program on Internet
trust model evolution"

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/WIhsj9iVwZAMAzx3cFciuVW2GXw

(2) J. F. Lyotard in "The Postmodern Conditions: a Report on Knoweledge"
section "Elementary Nature of Social Tie: Postmodern Perspective mentioned
about "the self" as one "exists in a fabric of relations which is now
getting more complex and mobile" as it "is always be placed  on nodal
points in (a) certain circuit of communication".

Regard,
Guntur Wiseno Putra

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2020 13:03:21 -0800

Dear Guntur,
At 05:54 AM 02-02-2020, Guntur Wiseno Putra wrote:
>May we say about "building trust for legitimacy to represent", 
>"legitimacy to represent for trust"...? --as one is legitimated when 
>another or others trust(s) to that one (her/him)...?

I would not say that.  It can be a balancing act between various 
interests and/or imperatives.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Guntur Wiseno Putra <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 09:18:34 +0700

Dear S. Moonesamy &
architecture-discuss,

S.M: I would not say that.  It can be a balancing act between various
interests and/or imperatives.

GWP: Wheels need to stand to walk...: it is a matter of "balance"... That
is about a wheel system.

But, the performance of system at times needs to destroy its (/system's)
entropy (1), its balance which is about a balance at higher levels of
encompassing bigger/broader interests/imperatives (: It is not only about
either me or you but people surrounding also...): which is about a new
balance.

Does it not mean such an egoism related with security, that subjects (be it
as human well as non-human) struggle for its self-security.

Thus, there are problems of ethics and aesthetics here, as we are thinking
as men: about what is just and about what is beautiful.

Note:

(1) J. F. Lyotard said about system performance and entropy/balance in the
same paragraph with his explanation about "the self" I mentioned in the
previous message.

* to make additions in the last paragraph of my previous message:

In relation to "individuals in a network society", especially to "the
Internet users as individuals in a network society"--as mentioned in the
previous message--, the problem of "legitimacy for representativity"  is
about how building trust for legitimacy to represent interests(2). "Who the
Internet users trust (their interest, meanings and values) to..."? "Why and
how do they trust them to..."? Those are among others questions arisen in,
what we may name, "networked representativity".

Regard,
Guntur Wiseno Putra

Pada Senin, 03 Februari 2020, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> menulis:

> I would not say that.  It can be a balancing act between various interests
> and/or imperatives.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>