[WSIS CS-Plenary] Internet Governance - what is it?

[Joe Baptista]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Andrew Calabrese wrote:

> Thank you Joe. I'll follow Elizabeth's advice and delete your postings. I
> didn't mean to project arrogance, but you clearly received it that way, and
> I'm sorry for that.

No problem.  I accept your appology and I give you one in return.  Not for
what I have said, but for the fact you may have thought it was only
directed at yourself.  What I said to you applies to everyone here.  Which
is why I want to take the time to review all this nonsense the WSIS goes
on about in relation to Internet governance.

I have watched these WSIS conferences now for 9 months.  In that nine
months I have read alot of jibbersih - non of which is actually related to
internet governance nor remotely connected to it.  The basic problem I
have with what goes on here in relation to internet governance is that non
of you actually know what it is.  You attempt to apply real world
governance models to a system which simply refuses to accomodate these
models.

And why is that?  Well Andrew and other folks - the failure is simply
related to the fact that non of you actually understands what the Internet
is.  Sure, you all have a basic understanding of the technology - but no
familiarity with how that technology interacts with itself and the devises
or users that technology is connected too.

If you actually did understand the working of the Internet non of you
would have even bothered to define what Internet governance was - nor
would you waste your time on it.  Because if the truth be known there is
no such animal.  Never was - never will be.

To understand the Internet I think it's best I refer you to a document by
Einar Stefferud, a recognized founder of the alternative, inclusive,
public-roots.  This document is called the Internet Paradigm.

http://nma.com/papers/InternetParadigm.pdf

In this document you will discover that the Internet has evolved in
stages.  Each stage is an educational experience.  A maturity of the edges
which define it - i.e. the users.

In order to govern this mess one must develop a very simple core of
control.  This is what I built into the public-root model.  Which see a
basic overview of it's operations:

http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/DIAGRAM1.pdf

This model addresses the issues raised by the paradigm by making the core
operations simple, allowing everyone to participate equally without
barriers.

The model has been extremely successful.  The public-root was not only
able to get all of turkey, equant, and tiscali resolving it's root, but
this month we were also going to add Saudi Arabia, Quatar, and the UAI to
our list.  Now thats success, which proves what I knew in the first place
- the model works perfectly.

I can tell you that ICANN has been busy phoning people and doing
everything in it's power to stop our progress.  They were unsuccessful.
The only person capable of putting the brakes on the Public-Root was
myself.  And I did that through investigation and disclosure.  You see the
model i allowed them to create was not the model the created.  Instead the
public root model created by our boys in the netherlands looked a bit like
this:

http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/DIAGRAM2.pdf

My frustration is - as mentioned before, when I brought this to the
attention of the community, i.e. people like Froomkin, Auerbach and
Mueller - all actively involved with us - the net result was that these
twits response was to bury their heads in the sand.  I noticed the same
thing here at the WSIS.

What concerns me is that as community leaders and governments bury their
heads in the sand and do nothing, Turkey and Tiscali users are at risk.
After all, a simple check with the netherlands police will show the
Public-Root is firmly in the hands of criminals, being one Herman Xennt,
Marcel Bor and Paul Scheepers.

But no one to date has given the risk our users have any concern.
Everyone here is busy with their own agendas - which are as I promisse you
going nowhere.

And by default - the same risks of security and information privacy exist
for the users of the ICANN roots.  The U.S. government keeps telling us
the root servers have been increasing in size.  But what does that really
mean.  How many people here know the name of the man who runs a majority
of these U.S. root servers.  He has control of root service at some of the
major centers world wide.  He has no contracts with ICANN or the USG.  The
data he collects on users is regularly shared with the U.S. government and
various research centers.  Anyone know his name - can anyone guess?

You see, these are the real issues.  Issues which no one here actually
understands nor can they address them.

If you want to govern the Internet - the model for that has been
established.  The theory is simple enough.  Keep you core simple so the
complex edges accept you.

And lets not forget exactly what it is this governance involves.  All the
core has to do is maintain a database of names and numbers.  This is why
the WSIS process is destined to fail much like ICANN has failed.  Your all
too busy building a highly complex system of politics to control what is a
simple database function i.e. the listing of names (alpha caracters) and
numbers (Internet Protocol arpa).

My suspension of the Public-Root also means the end of ICANN and the WSIS
processes.  Why - because it exposes the obvious - your not needed.  Vint
Cerf chair of ICANN was aware of these issues some time ago.  His answer
was to jump ship and join Google which is building another root system.

Vint clearly understood is days were numbered over at ICANN and he did
what he thought was best.  Of course I see it as the finest mistake he has
yet made since in the long run it will only promote the Public-Root
solution.

May of you are also unaware that as a result of Vints actions and my
disclosure on the Public-Root has resulted in fragmentation.  Thre are now
in this past month up to 10 different bodies attempting to establish new
root systems.

In the past I was against this sort of fragementation, but I now accept it
as inevitable consequence of the human condition.  Maybe communications
must be disrupted for people to realize that he only way they can
communicate is to co-operate and stop being control freaks.

This is what i like about the internet.  It poses to humanity an
incredible challenge.  CAN WE WORK TOGETHER - because if we don't -
communications will slowly get worse.  A paradigm and a challenge is what
faces the WSIS today - and I'm ot impressed with the progress.


cheers
joe baptista

Joe Baptista, Official Public-Root Representative and Lobbyist to the
United States Congress and Senate / Tel: +1 (202) 517-1593

Public-Root Disclosure Documents: http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/
Public-Root Discussion Forum: http://lair.lionpost.net/mailman/listinfo/pr-plan