[governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs

[McTim]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 6:21 PM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>
>> Sala,
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2012, at 1:55 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <
>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> [...] Personally, I've always found it somewhat depressing that people
>> in forums such as this focus on stuff like what TLDs will be created or who
>> has the power to deny those TLDs when the _real_ "critical Internet
>> resources" are things like fibers and base stations and electricity and
>> environments that allow folks to interconnect their devices and networks
>> together.
>>
>
> I apologise for the delayed response.  One of the four Policy areas being
> as the *Infrastructure and Management of Critical Internet Resources*described within the WGIG 2005 Report and I enclose the link for those new
> to the list and new to IG discussions (
> http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf) page 5 Part III para 13:-
>
> "(a) Issues relating to infrastructure and the management of critical
> Internet
> resources, including administration of the domain name system and Internet
> protocol addresses (IP addresses), administration of the root server
> system, technical
> standards, *peering and interconnection, telecommunications
> infrastructure, *
> *including innovative and convergent technologies*, as well as
> multilingualization.
> These issues are matters of direct relevance to Internet governance and
> fall within
> the ambit of existing organizations with responsibility for these matters;
> "
>


Just FYI and AFAIK, there is no existing org which has responsibility for
peering.



>
> It is not unusual to have discussions on any of these aspects. I agree
> that there is not alot of space within the IGF to have sufficient
> discussions and "air time" on these. I do know that Packet Clearing House
> along with ARIN and ISOC  on Peering and IXPs which I thought was very
> relevant to the issue of "Access".
>
> There are some diverse challenges globally and it would seem to me that
> the IGF is a fantastic place to raise and share best practices lessons so
> that when these stakeholders return can leapfrog. I agree with you in this
> regard. That does not mean however that there are no discussions on other
> aspects. I will just use two examples, to make my point.
>
>    - Whois Look Ups is a significant issue especially when it comes to
>    accuracy of records and at the end of the day it becomes incumbent on
>    Registrars to properly manage these.
>    - Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 etc [poor anti dumping laws, and
>    general lack of awareness can make Telcos in the Pacific region vulnerable
>    targets especially when procuring supposedly v6 compatible equipment that
>    do not meet certain standards.
>
>
Do you have any evidence of this? I have always suspected that this is a
red-herring when I have heard this idea being touted in Africa.  Lots
(much/most) of routing gear has been v6 ready for over a decade.  CPEs
excluded.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120828/12e2448d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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