[governance] please read: APC text on Forum function

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

So true. And these principles, including that of shared responsibility
ensures that we can then count on it as the NGN. Interesting that few people
involved in the IP NGN issues are involved in IG issues. I think this is
key.

Meanwhile, whilst I was in Geneva, I heared rumours that some delegations
(not to be named) are hoping to use the lack of info of the public Internet
and how this open architecture works, to tell delegates that want to control
the Internet, to agree to have their own DNS and IP system, without telling
them that that would be introducing an alternative root system, thereby
fragmenting the open and public architecture of the Internet. Not sure how
this has progressed over the last few days, but I was concerned about this.
I was also concerned that some CS players were feeding this confusion by
making such statements too. 

This gets emotions high. Also they are not making a difference between
oversight of new names and existing one (especially TLDs) and also the
difference between management of  IP address allocation issues which is not
really under ICANN or US gov as such. DNS wise, The Somalia? And Libya?
examples were being circulated as saying the US can get a CCTLD off the
Internet if they like to. Apparently coincidentally or NOT, these countries
were in discussions or something with the US when it happened. 

As far as I know, the individuals running the master and the copies around
the world of the root server, will usually not allow this to happen. It may
have happened because the administrator did not pay their dues for the CCTLD
or something. Between this and IP issues, there may also be concern that as
we go IP NGN globally, allocation issues will also be important and not sure
they understand how this will be done. I was involved in APNIC';s early days
and I do know misconceptions governments have about this. Being part of and
having a say in APNIC is not something they know how to do, as these are new
cultures to them. 

Getting the facts right would certainly help diffuse the emotions running
high in Geneva. Not break it but diffuse it. 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas Ronda.

Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ronda Hauben
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 3:55 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Laina Raveendran Greene
Cc: 'Lee McKnight'; wdrake at ictsd.ch
Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function


About 'end-to-end' and 'open architecture'

Actually the architectural principle for the internet was 'open
architecture' which meant that all the info about the the communicating
networks would function as peers of each other,rather than requiring that
any one become a component of another."

A definition of open architecture is "Open architecture...describes the
structure of the Internet, which is built on standard interfaces, protocols,
a basic data format, and a uniform identifier or addressing mechanism. All
the information needed regarding the interconnection aspects is publicly
available."

The end to end principle has been promoted as the essence of the Internet,
but the Internet is not any single network (which goes from one end to
another end.). The Internet is a network of networks.

So it is important that this interconnection of dissimilar networks be
recognized in characterizing the Internet, as this is the conception of its
origin and what its nature is. This is what makes it possible for so many
dissimilar networks to be interconnected in today's Internet.

Ronda

http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt

http://www.circleid.com/article/96_0_1_0_Chttp://www.circleid.com/article/96
_0_1_0_C

http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt


On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:

>
> Agreed with you Lee. There is a need to remind people about the 
> openess of the Internet and the spirit in which it was created and 
> spread around the world. In our statement, we tried to remind 
> delegates that the Internet was created by individuals with a high 
> sense of shared responsibility and trust, and any efforts for IG, 
> whether improving the status quo, creating a forum and/or new 
> oversight mechanisms, should all be done within these same spirit.
>
> Currently, as Amb Klarkin pointed out, we are at a unique juncture of 
> public and private international law coming together. It has happened 
> before from the 60s to 90s, with the rise of MNCs and international 
> law moving towards the application of "soft laws" and increase of 
> private international law applications. Now we have the civil society 
> equation, which is new to some agencies especially the likes of ITU. 
> It is a very unique juncture of the creation of a "new form of 
> cooperation" between stakeholders and a new form of "soft law" (even 
> moving beyond what we have in PIL....a term used in public 
> international law vis a vis MOUs e.g. lke the one we had on GMPCS on LEOs
etc..).
>
> Laina
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee McKnight
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:21 PM
> To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function
>
> Karen, Bill,
>
> I appreciate your intent Karen and APC's intent but agree with Bill 
> that 'binding international agreements' on openness is a 
> contradication in terms that will never fly.
>
> Language more along the lines that the forum's efforts should keep in 
> mind the need to preserve the Internet's essential features, such as, 
> 'openness etc..' might have the opposite effect of making agreement 
> easier, since then the forum is signalling the techies that it will not
muck things up.
>
> Lee
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
>>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/29/05 5:55 AM >>>
> Karen,
>
>>> In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape
> of
>>> the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding
> international
>>> agreements that relate to:
>>>
>>> -        the architectural principles of the Internet, including
>>> interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle
>
> I am very strongly opposed to putting this in the forum, and believe 
> it will provide the USA and business with a big opening to reject the 
> forum outright.  I hope you will reconsider, it's dangerous.
>
> Rest is consistent more or less with IGcaucus etc.
>
> BD
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> _______________________________________________
>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance