<html>
<body>
At 22:11 01/09/2013, David Conrad wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Aug 31, 2013, at 8:03 PM, JFC
Morfin <<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com">jefsey@jefsey.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Because the usefulness of IPv6
addresses (like IPv4 addresses) is constrained by network topology, not
politics or whether they feel good, thus for the Internet to actually
scale, you need them to be allocated by service providers, not
politicians?</blockquote>where to you take that Stakeholders are only
made of "politicians"? </blockquote><br>
Sorry, where did I say "Stakeholders" are made only of
politicians?</blockquote><br>
??? I just read you. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">This is exactly the opposite of
my position.</blockquote><br>
To be honest, I'm unclear as to what your position actually
is.</blockquote><br>
So this is the case for both of us. Let us proceed to see if we can
mutually clarify. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Your
<a 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><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I particularly like now your
affirmation (I share in part) of the need for the Internet to scale that
IPs are allocated by ISPs. </blockquote><br>
And do you believe the ITU or civil society are ISPs?</blockquote><br>
I do not understand your point here.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">However, I am not sure what
RIRs, NRO, ICANN and the USGov have already fully understood and accepted
that subsidiarity. </blockquote><br>
Can you provide any evidence they have not?</blockquote><br>
Certainly.<br><br>
The point you want me to demonstrate is that they have not fully
understood and accepted what subsidiarity means. I will make it very easy
for you to contradict me. Subsidiarity means that I can choose the route
of my data (for obvious security and legal [irt. Patriot Act] reasons).
How do they support the lobby for that necessity for network neutrality?
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Look, you are no more the IANA
head, paid by ICANN and ultimately reporting to the USGov as you
described the things at that time. Here, you are supposed to help the
Civil Society members understand how the other stakeholders, as you
learned them, see the common world, and therefore how we can jointly
uncover a deeper consensus than the apparent
oppositions.</blockquote><br>
Thanks for letting me know what my role is.</blockquote><br>
This is the role that we all presumed to share in here; as long as we
claim that we belong to the civil society. If I have misunderstood you as
a civil society member, I apologize, as there was no offence intended. We
all may share have capacities and/or interests in several or in all the
categories.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">OpenStand is a strategy of
business take-over of the internet. </blockquote><br>
We disagree. </blockquote><br>
This is your most absolute right. However, since it seems to contradict
what the text and its authors state, could you please explain a little
bit more about your position that seems to deny that the internet
technology reached its technical maturity? <br><br>
<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><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><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><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><br>
Everyone is welcome to join with practical/pragmatic propositions and
projects.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>