[governance] [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead

[David Conrad]

On Aug 31, 2013, at 8:03 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>> Because the usefulness of IPv6 addresses (like IPv4 addresses) is constrained by network topology, not politics or whether they feel good, thus for the Internet to actually scale, you need them to be allocated by service providers, not politicians?
> where to you take that Stakeholders are only made of "politicians"?  

Sorry, where did I say "Stakeholders" are made only of politicians?

> This is exactly the opposite of my position.

To be honest, I'm unclear as to what your position actually is.

> Your http://icannwiki.com/index.php/David_Conrad gives some (not recent) but clear links about the political dependance of the governance of the IANA.

To repeat the common refrain, "IANA is a set of functions, currently performed by ICANN under contract to the US Dept. of Commerce, NTIA."  As such, it is obvious there is some politics associated with "the IANA".  However, you were talking about routing, not about the IANA. My point was that the ITU model of address allocation moves away from the network topologic address allocation model and as such, is less scalable (at least using current routing technology).  I'm unaware of the civil society address allocation model so withhold comment.

> I particularly like now your affirmation (I share in part) of the need for the Internet to scale that IPs are allocated by ISPs. 

And do you believe the ITU or civil society are ISPs?

> However, I am not sure what RIRs, NRO, ICANN and the USGov have already fully understood and accepted that subsidiarity.  

Can you provide any evidence they have not?

> Look, you are no more the IANA head, paid by ICANN and ultimately reporting to the USGov as you described the things at that time. Here, you are supposed to help the Civil Society members understand how the other stakeholders, as you learned them, see the common world, and therefore how we can jointly uncover a deeper consensus than the apparent oppositions.

Thanks for letting me know what my role is.

> OpenStand is a strategy of business take-over of the internet.

We disagree. 

> we all have to accept that architectural requirements result from historic/economic/egotistical choices and are therefore political

Actually, the architecture of the Internet (at least beyond the datagram model) was mostly driven by what worked at the time, even if it wasn't ideal to meet 'historic/economic/egotistical' requirements.

Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130901/638c61ed/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