<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<font face="sans-serif">Milton<br>
<br>
It is difficult to argue with someone who is so bitterly extreme
liberal that he can ascribe everything that he doesnt like to the
'collective'. How can you conflate corporations and
'collective'???? <br>
<br>
On a more practical note, Karl makes a clear case of how the
Internet has become lumpy and today largely consists of a few mega
spaces completely owned and run by corporations. So, the clear
issues that come out here are; Are you happy with the situation in
this regard, and the trends we see? If not, what do you think can
and should be done to keep the Internet as it originally was
supposed to be? <br>
<br>
As for me, obviously, I am not happy with such oligopolistic
propertization of the Internet. And I think the way forward is for
all public interest actors to try and frame some basic global
norms to ensure that the basic open and egalitarian architecture
of the original Internet is maintained.The IGC workshop on 'A
possible framework for global net neutrality' is an attempt in
this direction.<br>
<br>
Positing freedom of expression (FoE) issue as the real net
neutrality </font><font face="sans-serif">(NN) </font><font
face="sans-serif">issue does nothing other than block possible
progress on net neutrality norms globally. The two sets of issues
- Foe and NN - are structurally distinct enough to merit
independent treatment, while making the connections wherever they
obtain. The FoE set of issues are principally aimed at entrenched
political actors seeking to perpetuate their power illegitimately.
NN set of issues, on the other hand, are targeted at the
dangerously growing oligopolistic power of mega digital
corporations, which threatens to skew our techo-social
architectures in ways that the global society will greatly regret
if we do not act fast. I do not see what you are doing to help
this case. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>On Saturday 18 June 2011 12:42 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7173CAE8C4F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:#333333;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Parminder<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">The fact
of the matter is that it is collective processes that are
taking us away from end to end (e2e) as much as your hated
individual choice. Indeed, probably more the former than the
latter. When govts or corporations install firewalls that
filtering incoming and outgoing traffic for spam, malware,
illegal content they are departing from e2e, usually in the
name of collective </span><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73,
125);">values or legal requirements. So I am afraid your
attempt to score a quick point against liberalism fails. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">--MM</span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier
New"; color: red;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt;
border-style: none none none solid; border-color:
-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color
blue; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div>
<div style="border-right: medium none; border-width: 1pt
medium medium; border-style: solid none none;
border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) -moz-use-text-color
-moz-use-text-color; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif"; color:
windowtext;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:
10pt; font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif"; color:
windowtext;"> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>parminder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 17, 2011 1:58 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Quo Vadis IPv6 - Was: Re:
[governance] IPv4 - IPv6 incompatiblity (was Re:
Towards Singapore)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span
style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif";">Hi All<br>
<br>
Karl provide a concise description of what is happening
and what went wrong with the internet. This analysis is
best represented in the following paragraph</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(Quote starts) <br>
<br>
In addition users of the net no longer view the internet as
a vehicle for the transport of packets from one IP address
to another. Rather users today see the internet as a bag of
applications. They don't care how the engines underneath
work as long as the applications work. In other words,
users don't care about the end-to-end principle. <br>
<br>
So we have to evolving forces: <br>
<br>
A) the desire of gov'ts and others to create and regulate
choke points into/out-from their chunks of the net <br>
<br>
B) the the consumer-eye view of the net as a platform for
applications <br>
<br>
These two forces combine to allow the net to evolve in a
direction many of us do not like to think about - a kind of
soft fragmentation that I call the "lumpy" internet. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif";">(quote from
Karl's email ends)<br>
<br>
Apart of understanding what is happening, we are a
political advocacy need to figure out 'what can and should
be done about it'. And in this respect the following part
of Karl's email is very instructive. <br>
<br>
"</span>It would be sad indeed, from the point of civil
liberties and expression, to kiss goodbye to the end-to-end
principle. But that loss is as much due to users who view
the network as applications as to any of the other forces -
attractive toys often distract us from social values. "<br>
<br>
Is it not something new that 'individual users' are acting
in this way, it is a way they or we always/ mostly behave.
Not everything can be given the right direction and, when
needed. corrected by individual users themselves acting
independently (the techno-liberal view) or consumers voting
through their dollars (the neo-liberal view). This also
shows the strong overlaps of the techno-liberal and
neo-liberal views in their practical outcome and impact,
which in this case, for instance, is that we have nearly
lost out on end-to-end principle, and the chances of
building the Internet as really an egalitarian platform and
force, which was the global society's hope for quite some
time. <br>
<br>
We need collective/political processes, how much ever a
techno-liberal, instinctively hates the very term, to guide
our soceities in the direction we want it to go. The dream
that the new technology paradigm will by itself do it for us
is fast evaporating, and it is good time that we pulled our
heads out of the proverbial sand. It is time that we, as a
prime civil society group in the global IG arena, tries to
come up with a sound political vision - both substantive and
institutional - for how the Internet should serve the
highest and most noble causes or social values that we
espouse, or, in default, one will have to say, which we
think we espouse. <br>
<br>
<br>
parminder<span style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif";"><br>
<br>
</span><br>
On Friday 17 June 2011 04:32 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 06/16/2011 02:30 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Or, what was the biggest reason/rationale
not to make IPv6 compatible <br>
with IPv4.... <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><br>
IPv6 had a somewhat difficult birth back in the early
1990's. <br>
<br>
There were actually several proposals - my own favorite was
a thing called TUBA, which was an adaptation of the ISO/OSI
connectionless network layer. There were several aspects
that were interesting, and it had an address that was
expansible up to 160bits. The hostility towards ISO/OSI is
still strong today - much to the detriment of the internet -
and was much stronger back then. So TUBA sank beneath the
IETF's waves. <br>
<br>
It was recognized back then that there were several issues
in play; the address size was recognized as but one issue
among many. <br>
<br>
The format of the address was another - the variable size of
the TUBA "NSAP" scared people who built routers because of
the overhead of parsing a flexible address format. <br>
<br>
Which leads to the big issue that IPv6 never squarely faced
- the issue of how routing information is created,
aggregated, propagated, used, and withdrawn on the net. As
a general rule the net's routing infrastructure needs to be
able to propagate route information faster than the average
rate of route change. And since those days we've learned to
be a lot more skeptical about the authenticity of routing
information. <br>
<br>
Early on there was much talk and though about IPv6
transition - how things might co-exist, even with
intermediated interoperation of IPv4 and IPv6 devices. But
over time the energy to have a smooth transition withered
and left us more with a conversion from IPv4 to IPv6 rather
than a transition - the difference is subtle, conversion
tends to be a more painful hurdle to leap than a transition.
<br>
<br>
My own personal feeling is that IPv6 is too little and too
late, that it will hit with about the same force as ISO/OSI
- which like IPv6 had the backing of governments (GOSIP) and
large companies (MAP - General Motors, TOP - Boeing). <br>
<br>
We are here talking on a mailing list in which many of the
discussions are based on a recognition of the increasing
desire of governments, intellectual property protectors,
corporations, and others to stake out territories for them
to control. <br>
<br>
In other words, we here are quite familiar with the fact
that there are many forces that want to carve the internet
up into fiefdoms and draw paywalls or tariff-walls or
censorship lines around their dominions. <br>
<br>
In addition users of the net no longer view the internet as
a vehicle for the transport of packets from one IP address
to another. Rather users today see the internet as a bag of
applications. They don't care how the engines underneath
work as long as the applications work. In other words,
users don't care about the end-to-end principle. <br>
<br>
So we have to evolving forces: <br>
<br>
A) the desire of gov'ts and others to create and regulate
choke points into/out-from their chunks of the net <br>
<br>
B) the the consumer-eye view of the net as a platform for
applications <br>
<br>
These two forces combine to allow the net to evolve in a
direction many of us do not like to think about - a kind of
soft fragmentation that I call the "lumpy" internet. <br>
<br>
Such a lumpy internet would be composed of distinct, but
each fully formed, IPv4 (or IPv6) address spaces. Each lump
would have its own routing infrastructure, own hierarchy,
etc. If someone, like China or Comcast, needed more
addresses than IPv4 could provide, they could create more
lumps for themselves, each with a full 32-bit address space.
<br>
<br>
These lumps would be connected by Application Level Gateways
- things like web proxies. These would act as relays
between the lumps. End-to-end addressing is by names, such
as URIs or twitter tags or whatever seems appropriate. <br>
<br>
This may seem far fetched, but it is not unlike the way that
mobile phone networks interconnect applications (voice being
one application, texting be another) between competing, even
hostile providers such as AT&T and Verizon. <br>
<br>
(These ALGs are much like a concept I proposed back in the
1980 and that Cisco revived a couple of years back - they
are essentially the application layer analog to layer 3 IP
routers.) <br>
<br>
Domain names would become contextual - their meaning would
depend on the lump in which they were uttered. However,
people don't like surprises and there would be a natural
pressure for the DNS naming systems of different lumps to
construct mechanisms or clearinghouses to assure a
reasonable, but probably not perfect, degree of consistency,
while allowing local/per-lump variations and extensions.
Application level gateways might find that one of their jobs
is mapping out inconsistencies of names between lumps. <br>
<br>
Internet lumps have some attractive properties, at least in
the eyes of some: <br>
<br>
- They are "owned" so that the owner, whether that be a
country or a corporation or a religious group, can open
contact with the rest of the world only through guarded
portals (i.e. their set of application gateways.) <br>
<br>
- Those portals can be taxed, censored, data-mined as
desired. And since application level gateways pull
user-data up to the application layer, there is no need for
deep packet inspection technologies. <br>
<br>
- Since each lump is in itself a complete IPv4 space,
there is no need for transition to IPv6. Each lump could
give itself the entire 32-bit IPv4 address space, just as
today we each re-use the same chunks of IPv4 private address
space behind the NAT's in our homes. <br>
<br>
- Application level gateways between lumps do not require
super-NATs, so the 64K limit on TCP/UDP port number issues
do not arise. <br>
<br>
This not necessarily an attractive view of the future, but
it is possible and, I believe, likely. <br>
<br>
It would be sad indeed, from the point of civil liberties
and expression, to kiss goodbye to the end-to-end
principle. But that loss is as much due to users who view
the network as applications as to any of the other forces -
attractive toys often distract us from social values. <br>
<br>
--karl-- <br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>