[governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF'

[Parminder]

> 1) IPv4 address consumption is nearing it's "end game".  While growth
> of the rate of new subscribers in the North may have declined, there
> are still more folk with the cash to get online than in the South.
> This demand will be primarily IPv4.
> 
> 2) the "Internet of things" will require many millions/billions of
> IPv6 addresses. I see this "Internet of things" happening first in the
> developed world, as that is where the cash is to build it first.  (I
> use "", as only things (network interfaces) use IP addresses already,
> not people or countries.)

McTim

You are quite forthright in describing what leads the development of the
Internet - CASH. Whoever got it, Internet follows him. Do you think there
could be other models of Internet's further development other than a blind
drive toward more cash ( I say this at the risk of once again annoying
Milton :)).... Probably a model that mixes cash or purely market-driven
shaping of the Internet with some more clearly social concerns - development
among them... Have you ever thought of it.... Or are you of the neo-liberal
brigade which believes that whether it is a social cause, or cultural arena,
or about poor and disadvantaged, or about countries who have historically
been disadvantaged systematically, about basic rights like health and
education, or about family life, or about community relationships, whatever
- unbridled markets, and markets alone are the perfect solution. Everything
else is perfidy. 

Parminder  
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 12:03 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community
> or 'who is afraid of the IGF'
> 
> On 9/7/07, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> > MM
> > And I have heard this argument many times before. Indeed, I heard it at
> the Oxford Internet Institute conference last year, where a room full of
> British, Americans and Europeans insisted that developing countries don't
> care about the CIR issues, they care about development and access. And
> when I pointed out that no one in the room was from a developing country,
> and that the parties who had raised the issue repeatedly in global forums
> were Brazil, South Africa, China and a other developing countries, that
> line of dialogue came to a rather abrupt end.
> >
> 
> Well the Afri* folk I interact with daily certainly DO care about CIR
> issues,
> as for most it is part of their business to do so.  However, these
> same folk care MUCH
> more about spreading the edge of the network.
> 
> >
> <attempt at humour snipped>
> 
> >MM
> > Anyway, in a period where we are about to run out of IPv4 addresses, we
> are starting a debate on markets for IP addresses and the old regime won't
> even consider it because it would upset their control.
> 
> Who is we?  The "old regime" has been discussing this for many years.
> In fact, many feel this is inevitable.  Many/most recognise that there
> are "gray" (and darker colored) markets in existence now.   There are
> active discussions on multiple addressing related lists about this
> very topic.  Please join if you want to have any policy making voice
> on this issue.
> 
> MM
> > And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the bloc
> size of IPv6 address distributions.
> 
> Actually, no. The IETF stuck a fork in that one long ago.  I think it
> was RFC3513 (or maybe 3531, I've always been dyslexic about those
> two.)  Again all this info is widely available on IETF/RIR lists. I
> encourage you to join them or read their archives if you really wwant
> to gain "expertise" in these fields.
> 
> MM
> >The idea that CIR is not relevant to ALL countries is just crazy. But
> it is certainly relevant to >developing countries, who will be the
> primary source of demand for address space in the >years to come.
> >
> 
> I'm not sure I buy this, but I have heard it before.  2 things make me
> doubt it:
> 
> 1) IPv4 address consumption is nearing it's "end game".  While growth
> of the rate of new subscribers in the North may have declined, there
> are still more folk with the cash to get online than in the South.
> This demand will be primarily IPv4.
> 
> 2) the "Internet of things" will require many millions/billions of
> IPv6 addresses. I see this "Internet of things" happening first in the
> developed world, as that is where the cash is to build it first.  (I
> use "", as only things (network interfaces) use IP addresses already,
> not people or countries.)
> 
> MM
> > Likewise, most growth in domain name markets will come from multilingual
> new TLDs, which are most relevant to developing countries.
> >
> 
> Agree, but, as you know, names aren't "critical" IMO.
> 
> MM
> > Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue.
> >
> 
> This is losing "criticality" in my mind. We have know about the
> threats that DNSSEC can prevent for over 15 years, if the threats were
> so ominous we would have seen lots more attacks than we have seen.
> DNSSEC deployment is going to go forward because so many people ave
> invested so much of their time that it can't NOT be deployed. It
> remains to be seen how widely it will be embraced, even if/when the
> root is signed.
> 
> <load of bollocks snipped>
> 
> >about this but to repeat ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. Aside from
> showing a terrible lack of imagination, this is irresponsible.
> 
> I think you are projecting.
> 
> > There are really meaty policy issues there.
> 
> Absolutely, and there is only ONE way to influence decisions on these
> issues, and it's not the IGF.
> 
> >
> > As physical access in developing countries grows, and as their own
> domestic ISP market increases in size, they will inherit a world where the
> rules for getting IP addresses and entering the domain name market have
> been written in the USA.
> 
> This is completely incorrect for (getting IP space).  Any "expert" in
> the field should know better.
> 
> > More important than the geographic source of the rules is their
> substance: are they efficient, do they encourage competition, are they
> equitable? Perhaps at Rio we can move beyond Tunis if we actually have a
> real discussion of these issues.
> 
> Efficiency and promoting competition may be the criteria for names (I
> don't really care about names, as they are simply a "layer of
> misdirection"  For address space the criteria are more about
> uniqueness, conservation and aggregation.
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance