[governance] US v John Doe & Others [#RIRs #Botnets #IP Addresses #extraterritorial jurisdictional application]

[Daniel Kalchev]

On 28.11.11 06:54, McTim wrote:
> In the developing world, we would be far better off Internet-wise if 
> governments would focus on supply of reliable power instead of names 
> and numbers
Short answer: It is cheaper to play games with names and numbers instead 
of to lay cables and invest in operations.


It seems that government 'types' always try to take control over the 
pieces they think are most 'important'. So that they can take control 
'cheap'. They were advised by.. 'experts' that domain names and IP 
addresses are the most critical aspects of Internet. ICANNs own 
positioning also focuses on this idea and ICANN is known to want to play 
with Governments.

But... Internet was designed to have no single point of failure. IP 
addresses are just numbers. Domain names are just mnemonic labels for 
people to remember instead of numbers. One good example with the names 
is what let to the creation of ICANN: the "discovery" that Internet is 
not limited to a single DNS root and the "discovery" that a number of 
alternative roots did already exist and the "discovery" that it is 
user's choice which one they will prefer --- which is entirely at the 
hands of Internet users, because as I mentioned it already before, the 
Internet is different from past communication networks: it's most 
significant intelligence sits at the end nodes, not in the network. 
Therefore, whatever end nodes (individual users trough their own 
computers or other communication devices) decide, that is the Internet.

Which, by the way spells the recipe: in order to control the Internet, 
you need to control the end-user equipment used to connect and use Internet.

Back to the RIRs -- historically, IP addresses were a 'give away' 
resource. Anyone who wanted some, got it. Eventually, IANA found itself 
dealing with all sorts of requestors, from weird places taking strange 
languages and they wanted mediators. This is how RIRs were born. I still 
remember the times, when RIPE NCC in Europe envisioned creation of 
national, latter called "last resort" registries. These were actually 
created, then decommissioned. Perhaps that was wise -- because otherwise 
we would have had already 'national', that is, Government controlled 
'public property' in the form of IP addresses and instead of (as it is 
now), operators competing for IP address allocations, we would have had 
Nations competing for IP address allocations. We will never know what 
allocation policies would be developed, such as per-capita allocation, 
or per GNP or per % contribution to the EU? :)

It follows from the allocation model, that the ultimately responsible 
party is the end-user/ISP that was allocated that address space. RIRs 
are just mediators. But the control/torment must flow the allocation 
chain -- from IANA to the RIR to the LIR and ISP/end-user.

Daniel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t