The intergovernance of the InterPLUS


The relation of humanity with reality has dramatically been reshaped during the last century due to the communications development and the first phase of the Internet project. This has to be understood, politically assumed, and technologically overcome, as the second phase of the initial project is ready to deploy, but it is opposed by alternative “status quo” or technically colonizing strategies. This is the time of the digisphere network of the people by the people.


Through technology and science, humanity is continuously extending its reach into reality's physical, non-physical, and societal mechanics. In this way it also extends its architectonical point of view, which leads to a slow, paradigmatic evolution that has, as everything, its continuities, and saliencies or discontinuities. The points of inflexion from which things will necessarily change can be called singularities.


Such a singularity occurred when Copernicus understood the "Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres"; another in 1889 when Henri Poincaré showed the mathematic impossibility to resolve the "n-body" problem in a finite time, initiating what could be called the 20th century architectonic revolution, i.e. relativity, quantum physic, etc. including the digital renormalization (replacing infinitesimality by disruption) and networking (meshing of complexity). Another singularity has most probably occurred that this debate intends to manage: the no-return point of humanity's use of the communicating information processors. This has transformed humanity from an anthropic society into an anthropobotic society, where the "bot" is a software application that runs automated tasks over the Internet, or more generally throughout the resulting digisphere.


Cybernetics in perspective



Man created machines in his own image, says Norbert Wiener. Humans also created them for the convenience of some. Our task is to make them for the convenience of all and everyone, being physical or cybernetic (i.e. monolectic: one action, one response), logical (i.e. dialectic: two premises, one conclusion) or agorical (like in an open agora of free people: many meshed dynamics, one emergence). This means to write the Human Mechanical Rights and enforce them, in particular in using their intellition (intrinsic intelligence) force, i.e. the "ethitechnical" way we design and use the physical, logical and agorical machines, along the Dr Lessig's many time verified adage: "code is law".

In so doing, we can be helped by a reflection on the technical homogeneity of theoretical, political, and societal metaphors. The incredible development of the technologies of information and communication is rooted in Shannon's entropic/negentropic Information Theory. Analysis of the seven communication states can help: I sleep, I listen, I talk with mine [e.g. family], I talk [monologue, monocracy], I talk to you [dialogue, democracy], We talk to us [polylogue, polycracy], We talk [consensus, symbiocracy]. In particular, symbiocracy has not been studied very much, except in the case of space or castaway settlers: our problem is that we are settlers in the cyberspace with the additional factor that we are a crowd of geographically, culturally, linguistically, politically, economically, and technically, strongly structured people.


The internet project



The internet project initially capitalized on two preceding contributions (TCP/IP and Catenet) and politically competed with two parallel ones, which initially led to the global network deployment (Tymnet and OSI), which meant to technically integrate with any other innovation (cf. EIN 48). This second motivation of the internet project has been over delayed by the politically/commercially unilaterally advantageous procrastination called the "status quo". If one were to characterize the first and the second internet motivation, one could say that the first motivation belongs to a "super user" hierarchic vision of system control, access and security, and that the second motivation belongs to their approach along an informed, capable, and intelligent user ("IUser") that is a more complex, but much more powerful vision.


The choice is architectonically political. It consists in defining an esthetic for the cyberspace (and thereby the ethic to attain it). The mechanism will necessarily be in both cases based on an international multi-stakeholder adhesion that can also be called globalization. The difference is in the decision mode: either along the logic of a national, multilateral mentor possibly concerted with commercial leaders, or along the emergence of a common agoric. The initial international deployment (Tymnet) was agoric (the term comes from its designer) and interfaced all the other technologies (X.25/75, TCP/IP, SNA, Swift, SITA, etc.). It then moved to multilateral mentoring through CCITT (ITU) X.75/25. Today, national mentoring (USG contract with ICANN) is to guaranty the DNS Class IN stability.





The difficulty of the ICANN US national mentoring, even globalized, is at least fivefold:


· Multi-Stakeholderism corresponds to a personal polycratic attitude. In monocracy, one delegates decisions to a mentor by obedience. In democracy, one shares decisions by vote. In polycracy, one makes decisions in applying them after mutual information: their effect, together with that of the others, results in emerging moods.


· Technically, the service provided by ICANN is middle-grade, has not contributed to the protection of US citizen privacy, is not necessary even in order to use the ICANN limited vision of the internet, and politically costly limits the capacities of the internet and the freedom of innovation.


· Cyber-sovereignty is a complex issue because: (1) a national cyber territory is virtual and global (2) commercial infra-sovereignties develop that tend to become transnational or multinational, (3) the global nature of the virtual cyber territories is not consistently and adequately considered by the geographical nation-states which need to consider, implement and support a global, multitechnological and multilingual relation-state approaches.


· Nation states have emerged and stabilized during the 16th/17th century in their Westphalian approach, from their Greek vision of the City. They kept the Aristotelian vision of equating architectonics with politics. The Chief of State (Archon eponymous) is sided by a Basileus Archon for the interior issues and the Polemach Archon for the exterior issues. Architectonic is assimilated with land and city planning and urbanisms.


This is no longer the case today: the fifth (cyber) environment/battlefield is first to engineer, deciding on its national future. An Architarch Archon is to manage this ulterior , along the precautionary principle, in order to avoid further catastrophes and conflicts. The international normative debate was already a technical colonization tool (internationalization of national standard to reach a favorable global norm); it is becoming a counterwar issue where precautionary doctrine, strategies, and forces are to prevent cyberwars and digital vulnerabilities.


Can the national architectonic choice only be on an MS or a monarchic basis, and not democratically approved? The WSIS Geneva declaration has decided on a consensual over all esthetic in committing to an information society that had to be people centered , à caratère humain , centrada en la persona .


· Privacy and security are to be increasingly confronted with the intellition challenge. Intellition can be defined as intrinsic information. It can be obtained without communication by pure intelligent inference. This is the purpose of data processing, artificial intelligence, and big data. To obtain unavailable, non-communicated, hidden, remote, etc. information by inference between the data on the data (metadata) we have and the conditional links we know (syllodata) between the linked data we have. One can protect access to data; one cannot prevent others from being intelligent.


The Internet experience


We created languages, scripting, money, mathematics, etc. The internet is the first man-made physical universal. We have no previous experience in managing a system of this size, but we know that:


· globalization is going to ask many other systems to be governed like the internet (energy, water, pollution, health, food, economy, etc.) so that it is a test-bed, we partly control the development, for us to learn about global governances (or most probably intergovernance)


· the architectural principles of the internet in RFC 1122, 1958, 3439, 5895 are good practical advises on the way to proceed, as they document the constitution of something that is structuring today s world. One of the non-written lessons of these RFCs is that complexity is a constant simplification of a network of simple things, and the opposite of complication.


· Ingenuity in Network developments have taught that whatever pays something in return, is fun, or annoys someone (including its own author!) will be attempted


The VGNs of the InterPLUS


A motivation of the internet project is to allow new networking technology to be introduced while remaining functionally compatible. This allows for the phased introduction of new virtual networks without requiring a global change. Now is the time of the end of the status-quo and to implement Vint Cerf s second motivation in starting the internet project (cf. IEN 48, 1978). It is time to multiply ICANNs and to use the Internet as the neutral and transparent support to a presentation layer on the user side (PLUS) fringe to fringe myriad of Multi-Stakeholder s private, trade, local, regional, national virtual global networks (VGNs), each of them with its own VGNIC meta-data referential system (MDRS) and HomeRoot


Multistakeholderism will this way be embodied as the intergovernance of the enhanced cooperation of international, public, private and personal virtual global network managers.



  • logo cgi
  • logo 1net