Proposed DC Core Internet Values Annual Report - please comment

[Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond]

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

as part of the IGF reporting requirements for Dynamic Coalitions, each Coalition needs to file an annual report of its activities, which includes any intersessional activity - defined as any activity it undertook outside the Global IGF meeting.

With the deadline for submittal of our annual report, please find my proposed report on the following Google Doc. Please comment directly on the document. I have tried to summarise activities as much as possible.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yx6TSpopH3G2HqrU1MyPIIEcJR7DmUQK6DBS2ehO9fY/edit?usp=sharing

I understand several activities are based on my direct participation in IGF-related sessions. I would be interested to hear if any of you have socialised the concept of Core Internet Values outside the group and would be interested in having this included in the annual report.

In addition to the full summary of our DC-CIV and DC-NN Session at the last IGF which is published on the IGF Web Site, I have made a shorter, summarised version of the session for this report and would be grateful if the people cited could check that I have not mischaracterised their intervention.

Many thanks,

OIivier Crépin-Leblond
DC-CIV Chair

[Vint Cerf]

Olivier, et al,

this is a good summary of activities. Do you suppose a list of effects/impacts could be highlighted as well?

v

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "coreinternetvalues" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to coreinternetval...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/coreinternetvalues/9e5e04fe-7892-43ec-a7d6-171d08b95ac7%40gih.com.

--

Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:

Vint Cerf

Google, LLC

1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor

Reston, VA 20190

+1 (571) 213 1346

until further notice

[Timothy Holborn]

Is internet user centric or agent centric or perhaps even agent centered, providing the ability to grant rights via whomsoever controls the ACLs of the agent. ? 

Below are a series of considerations about both the relationship between agents, rights and intrinsically therefore, agency. 

IMHO:

Centric inferring greater agency than as otherwise denoted by the notion of centered (ie: akin to guardianship or supervisory, although as may otherwise be used in different ways)

Two other considerations. 

1. DNS / domain management.

IMHO: it's increasingly important to ensure supports for natural legal entities to dependably have / own a domain name. 

I once lost wisdom.ai due to problems after paying a substantial fee to have it re-registered & transferred to a different registrar offering a cheaper price. They then sent me an additional invoice that I couldn't afford. The domain has since been for sale online for a substantive sum. 

There's many opportunities for cybersecurity and digital agency if / as issues relating to DNS become resolved overtime, should the desire to do so, for natural persons (supporting human centric informatics) become better supported; as is different, yet loosely coupled to any IPv6 subnet delegation related considerations. 

(And affiliated security & perhaps also, semantic capacities that could be advanced therein). 

2. "Intellectual property rights" (IPR) vs. a rights based approach. 

Historical IPR has been somewhat predicated on the concept of property.  Non-exclusive licenses sought for content on platforms, etc.  challenges mount as AI-ML (ie: LLMs) seek "training data". 

Yet my communication to you, for instance, isn't easily defined as "Property", rather, nonetheless, there is still a series of rights related semantics, incorporating moral & other rights as can often be mapped to principles set out by the spirit of UN legal instruments https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-listings 

( As could be made available via https://metadata.un.org/ or similar in RDF ) 

That can in turn be mapped both in terms of rights, obligations & responsibility (inferred and/or otherwise). 

So, for instance, if I believe my contributing words or utterances that may be comprehensibly useful to you, your "mindware", then perhaps I should seek to do so, on a best efforts basis, etc.  yet, it is not really my "Property", once such notions have been imparted, then the communicable derivative as furnished a interpretative modality for you, also becomes part of your "sense making" apparatus for consideration. 

Whilst I did not knowingly plagiarize my considerations from another source; I also didn't perform a comprehensive research activity to find out what others considerations on the topic may have otherwise been historically. 

As is in turn, a constituency of context otherwise "assumed", in good faith, generally. 

Note:  not sure about you, but I find myself getting alot of citations for a document that I produced, and in future, would prefer to refer the authors to the related document, and intrinsically therefore also, author.

https://www.w3.org/community/webize/2014/01/17/what-is-5-star-linked-data/

Which becomes a problem of semantics particularly in relation to other forms of software agents. 

Therein and illustration of circumstances where the proportionality of responsibilities and in turn (moral) rights, becomes illustrated, at a level pertaining to semantics (web of data), rather than the TCP/IP layer itself. Noting: I didn't seek out the citations. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20120819084741/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/

Except of longer clip about semantics (TimBL, 94) 

https://youtu.be/UkjyCPuTKPw 

Derivative considerations: 

A: Commons

B: information vs. knowledge 

https://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html

There's a level of complex confluence of evolution that's not been straightforward. 

Internet, the underlying plumbing, still, too often, appears to be "confused" with the applications. Whereas the development of application in turn influence the characteristics of the useful embodiment of the underlying medium & both it's design & use.  Similar to an electrical grid, designed to pass electrons or similarly, yet emergent, alternatives engineered for photons; vs., 

The design of electrical devices that make use of it.   Whilst this is straightforward for some, it seems this is not universally the case.  Policies for managing TV content isn't curated via power stations or electrical supply provider.  People can still use the lights even when politics/ public policy debates emerging issues about media content. 

Therein; the "commons" of the electrical supply & it's characteristics is different to policy about washing machines, hairdryers, TVs & other consumer electronics. 

Somehow these differences are still a struggle where applied to internet; and in turn also, the advancement of internet apparatus, such as DNS, augments our capacities in relation to the notion of knowledge, and implicitly therein, trust.

Perhaps another analogy could be, the consideration that we are all fellow members of our human family (ie: the needs of internet), but that we are all different, special.  Different cultures, communities, languages, etc. (semantics, or perhaps ontology, epistemology)

https://youtu.be/aigR2UU4R20 

Which was emblematic of "the web", yet the context of its original proposal (information management) shifted a gear, early on, (although, perhaps moreover for the few?) 

To, knowledge management...  And, in turn also not tightly bound solely to HTTP(x). 

Such considerations then give rise to the complexities of a field historically considered a form of AI as is now seemingly far too difficult to resolve easily due to emergent influences & the innate complexities therein; where, it is most certainly my belief that a "Human Centric" support fabric is an essential choice that must be universally available & made interoperable with any other modalities produced, that'll most likely also exist, on "the internet". 

Which leads back to the hypothesis, that the goal might be to ensure responsibility on a basis of being able to decern (to judge) who is in control or responsible for the behaviour of the agent; whereas, the behaviour of the agent may be perverted from the otherwise assumed user if it. 

Presently, I question whether & how internet actually provides agency or direct rights in relation to leases of critical internet infrastructure, such as domain names & IP Subnets, to natural persons and/or families; perhaps, as could be expressed as a % of our human population connected to internet (or influenced by its use). 

If this were more common, I wonder the implications for IoT, smart homes, cars, etc. and the security capacities then possible; alongside, the notion of using a Domain for email aliases that refer or denote particular relationships, thereby enabling differentiated social-internet capacities (& safety/security related measures) rather than the historical method whereby persons are generally dependent upon a single alias on a free, 3rd party domain as protection against the implications of loosing it; and/or, organisational domains, generally otherwise, that in turn have various IPR implications; becoming more complex, as the mediums (media) becomes employed for purposes likely considered unfathomable, decades ago, by its designers, et. al. 

In-part, deliberation about the notion of human identity, and whether the embodiments of contextual resonance can be exhaustively embodied by the notion of a wallet, also seems to be of practical importance; whilst also understandable, likely considered by most, to be out of scope. Whether or not that is in fact the case, as the hard work continues on presence & the architect of communications apparatus for humanity.

Therein, the status of "internet" as a commons, has different, "status of Qualia", different needs, where somehow a process of disambiguation to support the intergenerational influx of internet governance stakeholders & influencers, with the many fields of expertise upon which involvement is prefaced, appears to be a challenge, as is the means to ensure natural persons are first class users with thougher works needed to support the "digital transformation" obligations, for human rights, as to deliver temporally dignified query resolution capacities, that internet, is otherwise technically able to deliver.... 

For all members of our human family; and thereby in turn, for our humanity. 

Broadly, whilst I am a user of my computer, it seems I'm increasingly, not in control of it.  I think this a non-trivial issue, that may obscure the part to "reality check tech", in relation to the progressive development of internet, that is both linked, but different. 

In a way, there's different types of "agents", some have clearer characteristics than others.  Internet, is fundamental. 

Like a bios, as is different to the operating system, whether it be for information or knowledge.  Wisdom, pertains to the natural agent; save circumstances where there's been human rights failures, or other issues diminishing capacity naturally or artificially.

Hope this helps 🙏

& 

If it would be helpful for others, that I spend some more time thinking about it, as to provide subsequent derivatives, let me know.  

Timothy C. Holborn.

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, 1:56 pm Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, <o...@gih.com> wrote:

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

as part of the IGF reporting requirements for Dynamic Coalitions, each Coalition needs to file an annual report of its activities, which includes any intersessional activity - defined as any activity it undertook outside the Global IGF meeting.

With the deadline for submittal of our annual report, please find my discern report on the following Google Doc. Please comment directly on the document. I have tried to summarise activities as much as possible.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yx6TSpopH3G2HqrU1MyPIIEcJR7DmUQK6DBS2ehO9fY/edit?usp=sharing

I understand several activities are based on my direct participation in IGF-related sessions. I would be interested to hear if any of you have socialised the concept of Core Internet Values outside the group and would be interested in having this included in the annual report.

In addition to the full summary of our DC-CIV and DC-NN Session at the last IGF which is published on the IGF Web Site, I have made a shorter, summarised version of the session for this report and would be grateful if the people cited could check that I have not mischaracterised their intervention.

Many thanks,

OIivier Crépin-Leblond
DC-CIV Chair

--

[Roberto Gaetano]

<offlist>

Dear Olivier,

May I forward your draft report to the DC-Interplanetary?

We are new to DCCG and it would help to see a well-crafted report as an example for our very first report, due in March.

Thanks,

Roberto

[Roberto Gaetano]

sorry folks, as often I have messed up with the replies, it went to the whole group - which is actually not a bad thing, except for adding traffic to your mailboxes

r

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/coreinternetvalues/63543EB2-64D2-47EA-B6E7-FA4A73AD4D7E%40hotmail.com.

[Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond]

Dear colleagues,

following up on the message below, I'll wait another 24H before forwarding the report to the IGF Secretariat for publishing.
Kindest regards,

Olivier