Subject: [iucg] follow-up on my RFC 6852 appeal

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:38:59 +0200

Russ,

FYI, I conducted a few debates (in French) over the RFC 6852
appeal.

I. general obsevations

They led me so far to observe some hints of rough consensus
on:

1. concerns about the sovereignty concepts: how should they

multinationally articulate among different kinds of relational
spaces.

2. parallel between the economy and cyberspace, money and data, value

and information. Same fundamental errors/achievements. Solutions for

one should benefit the other.

3. when faced with architectonic considerations, people more or less

concur that,

- they are common fundamentals for cyberspace with different possible

architectures, the leading ones being Internet (OSI layers 1,2,3,4)

and Internet+ (OSI upper layers + services).

- a common "esthetic" (as a targeted ideal) should be phrased
for the

digisphere, i.e. our thinking and living in the world human + bots
ecosystem.

- they never thought about it really, as they took the internet

options as the only ones possible and thought that the IAB was in charge.

- RFC 6852 shows that the IAB is not, except for internet

architectural consistency, and that consistency results from a

compromise (no longer an absolute) "agreement [that] can be found

across a range of interests".

- the different ranges of interests should be documented by each

stakeholder, in mutually comprehensible terms. Identifying these terms

is the first purpose of an architectonical debate.

- no one has a real suggestion about preparing and holding such a

debate. It should be "democratic" but everyone fails to explain
how it

could actually be held.

- the right thing to target and carry out may not necessarily be

(multi)consensual.

II. My personnal conclusions

My personal, general (convoluted!) feeling is that we are
in:

- an “n-bodies” dynamic universe,

- hence in a timed n-logic context,

- where money remains the main metric of reference for ordered
exchanges,

- only limited by sovereignty that may legitimately oppose strength

(law) and violence (war).

2.1.  fundamental issue.

The points above make something new,

- to integrate in technology,

- calling for an attractor (esthetic),

- and a technical development ethic (ethitechnic).

2.2. way of addressing it

I call “agoric” the confluence of logics that, at the

probabilistically quantified layer that our environment is now daily

rooted in, no longer results in “conclusions” but rather in more
or

less stable “emergences”.

I presented in a preceding appeal the systemic topology that I

currently associate with the agoric polycentric space. I must also

note that I observe an apparent slow convergence of most scientists

and sciences over a century that one might reproduce through

artificial life like multiagent systems throughout the networks.

2.3. the internet part

In the virtual cyberspace, of which our mental digisphere has to live

with, the internet is to:

- provide data transport,

- permit informational interoperability,

- and support “body to body” communication.

So far, through the IETF work on the Internet test-bed, we have
identified:

- that everything may change (RFC 1958) at any time,

- coopetition among the different n-bodies may result in effillient

(efficient + resilient) synergy, in being stable in sending and open

in receiving (RFC 1122),

- things work if they are simple (RFC 3439),

- hence diversity is dealt with by subsidiarity (RFC 5895).

2.4. Personal bias

I am most probably biased since:

- the “agoric” concerns were at the root of the Tymshare/Tymnet

architecture, technology, and deployment,

- as the communications layers’ pile concept was initiated by Michel

Elie (office mate of Jon Postel), rooted in the 1970s INRIA/CII, in my

local neighborhood,

- my Tymnet’s job was to extend them into services matching the

international reality.

- I further integrated these concepts in my R&D, experimentations,
and

operations.

This probably also explains why I am very strict against layer

violations by double constraints affecting the intelligence layers

that I have identified above the ISO model, which are out of the end

to end boundaries (in the fringe to fringe and up to the psy to psy
areas).

III. Conclusion?

This means that starting by way of an open, joint effort to explore

the architectonic of what I call polycracy might be worth considering.

For example as an IAB IRTF/IUTF/ITU/ISO/IGF/ISOC etc. oriented

initiative for a coherent digital esthetic and the way to ethically get
at it.

For what it is worth.

jfc