[governance] Mandatory and non-mandatory governance (Was: China To Launch Alternate Country CodeDomains]

[Peter Dambier]

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> 
> I will certainly be classified as the bad guy but I do not agree that
> multilingualism should be regarded as a priority IN A GOVERNANCE
> discussion. To explain why I think so, I have to go back on what
> governance is.
> 
> There are two different sorts of political problems on the
> Internet. Those where a central governance is *mandatory* or things
> simply stop to work. DNS root management and IP address allocation are
> two typical examples (setting up technical standards, at least part of
> them such as the layer 3 protocol, is probably another). Two resources
> cannot have the same name or the same address, so you ultimately need
> a central authority, the root. The management of this root is a
> political problem, so you *need* some form of governance (wether it is
> ICANN, ITU, a new body, etc).
> 

There was a time without DNS. Even then some "bad guys" started writing
their own /etc/hosts files. Some people said it would never work. There
MUST be a zentalised host file and it must be kept by the u.s. army
because only they can mange it. Today billions of different /etc/hosts
do exist. You can use them. You can live without them.

Without the invention of RFC1918 we would long have run out of ip address
space. Today Bill Gates manages some 90% of all ip addresses probably
even at your home.

Hackers have shown that they dont need a zentralised body to hijack
ip addresses and to convince routers to use them. Jim Fleming has
shown how everybody can manage his own {ip addresses, routers and
even network achitecture}

In Africa you dont have big network infrastructure to deal with. In
Africa only Jim Flemings network is working.


As we are running out of ip address space I have seen more and more
ISPs giving out ip addresses from RFC1918 address space. Customers
using these addresses cannot communicate with each other. China with
about one quarter of the total internet population is facing a similar
problem. There is a big NAT-Router called the Chinese Wall. The world
cannot look behind that wall but people living behind that wall can
very well look outside and communicate outside (as long as they are
not zensored)

English is the language of a minority. There are more spanish
speakers and a lot more chinese speakers than there are english
speakers. How about latin? I s no longer mandatory at school.

I think it is a good idea China has built their own internet and
their own root even if only to show us, it is possible and it is
natural to do so.


The u.s. did invent a local telefone system. The rest of the world
followed building local domestic telefone systems. Nobody was silly
enough to connect their telefone system into enemy countries. Even
today you may find places that are not connected. The connections
are done by the intermediare of ITU. Here we have the gouvernance
that is needed.


The "internet" is a local domestic data network in the u.s. managed
by the u.s.

You cannot take the internet away from the u.s. nor could you take
away their telefone system.

There used to be a data network. In germany it was called datex-p.
you could use it to "dial" everywhere as long as you did know the
other partys datax number. Datex worked like telefone and telex.

Datex was meant to replace tcp/ip some day. Until a very short
time ago every unix and linux system was shipped with ISODE a
translation something that could turn tcp/ip into iso and the other
way round. The world was negligent. It was so much easier to buy
an extension into the american internet.

Today even the americans start to recognice that their internet
is running out of address space. At first they have to look after
their own people. As I said - the internet as we know it belongs
to the u.s. . We cannot take it away. It is domestic. We have to
build our own. Then we can think of connecting to each other.

China had no choice but to build their own internet together
with their own root. China together with the u.s. need 200%
of the total ip address space. Where is the rest of the world?

You cannot put China together with the u.s. into one and the
same internet. Where is iso? When is it ready?

Dont count on IPv6. It simply does not work. It does not scale.
You can control a home network that originally run Netbios.
You can control your toaster and the fridge but you cannot
connect to the internet. Bloody truth: IPv6 is point to point
only. You need an existing IPv4 infrastructure to connect.
As soon as everybody wants to use IPv6 the routers break. They
have not enough memory for their routing table. The reason is
not technically but missing gouvernance:

host1 2002:-bla-:3 is in Ulanbator
host2 2002:-bla-:4 is in Kiev
host3 2002:-bla-:5 is in Stokholm
host4 2002:-bla-:6 is in Sidney
host5 2002:-bla-:7 is in Washington

You are welcome to design the routing.

Ok, it is a little bit more complicated as I have shown. But
the result is the same. IPv6 was developped by point to point
connected islands. Nobody has a clue about routing. Not even
today.

Gouvernance is needed. But first we need something to gouvern.
Every country needs to build their own internet and their own
root. Then we can think of interconnecting and governing.

I think we are as bad as Stephane
cheers Peter and Karin


-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
The Public-Root Consortium
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49(6252)671-788 (Telekom)
+49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/


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