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

[McTim]

On 11/28/11, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

I only recall eu.zz as the Last Resort registry in the RIPE region,
but youo have more history there than I do.


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.

I think that the RIRs can (and do on occasion) revoke/take back resources.

LIRs can do the same.  I'm not sure the IANA can.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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