<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02.09.13 12:01, JFC Morfin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1VGQrm-0003MV-9j@igcaucus.org" type="cite">
At 22:11 01/09/2013, David Conrad wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Your
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://icannwiki.com/index.php/David_Conrad"
eudora="autourl">
http://icannwiki.com/index.php/David_Conrad</a> gives some
(not recent)
but clear links about the political dependance of the
governance of the
IANA. </blockquote>
<br>
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.</blockquote>
<br>
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):<br>
<br>
1. there is a network and an ITU topologic address allocation
model. Do
you know the URL of their current description of reference?<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is all an interesting topic for discussion. Let's hope it will
not be diluted..<br>
<br>
<br>
I have an issue with your point 2.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
Yet, because both impose additional costs on participants, they are
not universally available or not even accepted.<br>
<br>
Despite this, the Internet still continues to function.<br>
<br>
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".<br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
Is this your understanding of "civil society"?<br>
<br>
(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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1VGQrm-0003MV-9j@igcaucus.org" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">we all have to
accept that
architectural requirements result from
historic/economic/egotistical
choices and are therefore political</blockquote>
<br>
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.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
We agree.<br>
<br>
- 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).<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1VGQrm-0003MV-9j@igcaucus.org" type="cite"><br>
- 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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1VGQrm-0003MV-9j@igcaucus.org" type="cite"><br>
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:<br>
<br>
- the private commercial stakeholders category through OpenStand.<br>
- the Civil Society through an OpenUse coalition/cooperation
effort that
I support.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
One question remains unanswered here: did the typical Internet
participant ask for your "help"? Do they really need it? Do they
care?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1VGQrm-0003MV-9j@igcaucus.org" type="cite"><br>
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<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
You mean, the "private commercial stakeholder" and the "Civil
Society" can help each other? Sure, you both can.<br>
<br>
What about those who are the Internet?<br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
</body>
</html>