[governance] [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead

[Daniel Kalchev]

On 02.09.13 12:01, JFC Morfin wrote:
> At 22:11 01/09/2013, David Conrad wrote:
>
>>> Your http://icannwiki.com/index.php/David_Conrad 
>>> <http://icannwiki.com/index.php/David_Conrad> gives some (not 
>>> recent) but clear links about the political dependance of the 
>>> governance of the IANA. 
>>
>> To repeat the common refrain, "IANA is a set of functions, currently 
>> performed by ICANN under contract to the US Dept. of Commerce, 
>> NTIA."  As such, it is obvious there is some politics associated with 
>> "the IANA".  However, you were talking about routing, not about the 
>> IANA. My point was that the ITU model of address allocation moves 
>> away from the network topologic address allocation model and as such, 
>> is less scalable (at least using current routing technology).  I'm 
>> unaware of the civil society address allocation model so withhold 
>> comment.
>
> OK. The point here was not on the topology itself and on the 
> comparison of technical merits, them being supposed equals. It was 
> only about the acknowledged or claimed equal legitimacy of every 
> stakeholder category to be involved in IP addressing. What you imply 
> is (please correct me if I am wrong):
>
> 1. there is a network and an ITU topologic address allocation model. 
> Do you know the URL of their current description of reference?
>
> 2. the favored one is favored as more scalable in using the current 
> routing technology. Is that not an incitation to statUS-quo and an 
> opposition to R&D (this is the matter being discussed in this thread)? 
> Does the IANA political control by the NTIA affect this position?
>
> 3. at least three Civil Society address-allocation-model discussions 
> have been engaged with ITU after the denial of ICANN to discuss the 
> point with At-Larges. The father of datagram proposed one. The now 
> deceased CS society leader, Francis Muget, was appointed in part by 
> the ITU to produce an ITU IANA complement project that would suit the 
> CS. My organization (Intlnet) met with ITU several times on the matter 
> and produced a proposition for an ITU-I IPv6 addressing authority 
> plan, integrating a response to different Information Society concerns.

This is all an interesting topic for discussion. Let's hope it will not 
be diluted..


I have an issue with your point 2.

The Internet is what it is and enjoys the success it has primarily 
because, it does not *force* anyone to incur any costs they do not wish 
to have. Therefore, The Internet has always favored "what works" -- one 
way, or another. The desire to present this as an outcome of someone's 
political advances is just wishful thinking in my opinion --- but I 
understand this is typical for politics.

If that (undefined) R&D takes place, under as I understand the political 
guidance of various .. let's call them "interested parties" -- then this 
will surely result in additional costs imposed on everyone in Internet, 
as routing datagrams is Internet's core functionality.
To give just two examples: after a lot of research and experimentation, 
who useful technologies were developed for improving Internet's 
security: RPKI and DNSSEC. RPKI is all about making the routing 
protocols more secure and dependable and DNSSEC is respectively 
improving DNS: both core components of what The Internet is.
Yet, because both impose additional costs on participants, they are not 
universally available or not even accepted.

Despite this, the Internet still continues to function.

So, even if these is political opposition to any R&D (1), fact is it 
does not matter. The "opposition" in Internet is based on purely 
practical and cost reasons. The Internet *is* different from other 
networks in this regard and this apparently scares all the "interested 
parties".


As for your point 3... it is interesting, that after you cannot convince 
the Internet population to accept your behavior models, you go to ITU, 
believing that private-Government structure can do something about it? 
They could, if they owned the Internet, as they did all the 
communication networks before, including those experiments in France.
Is this your understanding of "civil society"?

(1) - everyone of the "interested parties" is very much in favor of R&D, 
as long as it is their very own R&D, resulting in their very own IPR and 
control. This is in the core of the reason why those parties can never 
agree.

>>> we all have to accept that architectural requirements result from 
>>> historic/economic/egotistical choices and are therefore political
>>
>> Actually, the architecture of the Internet (at least beyond the 
>> datagram model) was mostly driven by what worked at the time, even if 
>> it wasn't ideal to meet 'historic/economic/egotistical' requirements.
>
>
> We agree.
>
> - yes, the architectural model was actually dependent on the datagram 
> model adapted by ARPA from Louis Pouzin. This was a French Gov 
> political choice (at that time, we ran in France public services on 
> two other than datagram only architectures, and a sole other State 
> sponsored enhanced datagram architecture).

In my country, the Government was fiercely opposed to anything Internet 
related. So was the incumbent Telecom. I will not be surprised to hear 
today, if they claim exactly the opposite. In fact, they do.  This is 
politics.

>
> - yes, the architecture of the Internet has remained the same since 
> its very first day (1.1.83) due to the political/commercial opposition 
> from the statUS-quo.

You imply the US had supported the development of the public Internet. 
They have not. The US actually tried very hard to prevent it, as did 
most other governments.

>
> The IGF mission is to help enhanced cooperation projects toward the 
> emergence of new technologies for the Information society. At this 
> stage, there are two possible sources of such an emergence:
>
> - the private commercial stakeholders category through OpenStand.
> - the Civil Society through an OpenUse coalition/cooperation effort 
> that I support.

One question remains unanswered here: did the typical Internet 
participant ask for your "help"? Do they really need it? Do they care?

>
> Actually, we can help one another. This is why we are trying to keep 
> and encourage an open and positive dialog. Both sides fear rogue and 
> confusing elements, especially on the Civil Side because we are far 
> younger and weaker as a structure and global community and due to the 
> diversity of the FLOSS culture

You mean, the "private commercial stakeholder" and the "Civil Society" 
can help each other? Sure, you both can.

What about those who are the Internet?

Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130902/27a0bc53/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t