-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-11-18, at 10.26, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
This is for example what the French FCC is investigating in public
questionnaire right now, and I suppose they are not alone. A number
users will get at birth or creation (with additional ones if they buy
them); Their network national ID, warranted by their law so they
can use it in contracts, in life support services, in commercial
relations. They do not want smart solutions, they want sure, secure,
simple, stable, real life services for middle-aged house-wife, elders
and kids.
I have long thought that the knowledge of having long (life-long)
persistent, well-spread unique personal identifiers are bad was general
knowledge. Then again, I guess the US biometric stuff has proven me
wrong on that already.
IPv6 will win the day it will not be managed by IETF, not by ICANN,
not by RIRs, but by Govs. and will belong to the international law and
treaties. The customer is not the user. The customer are 192 States
law makers. Show Govs that IPv6 is a sovereignty field for them and
not for the US Gov alone, they will enforce it immediately (and this
is simple to achieve). Today they see IPv6 as another "USivernal"
semi-obligation. The day it is a free governement protected and
accepted service, it will become Universal. This is just what ITU is
investigating : that will please them. All the more than with its NGN
work, it speaks a language they can understand and which appeals on
them.
Let face it, today ITU is far more promoting IPv6 than ICANN and IETF.
And this is good; as Harald puts it: IPv6 is a finished product to be
managed ouside of the IETF (and of ICANN IMHO, hence of IANA, now IANA
has become just an "ICANN function").
I am going for the sake of argument to go along with your reasoning
above (although I don't agree). Apparently there is something here to
be gained, as we need to 'promote' a particular technology that is
under control of intergovernmental treaties. First of all, what would
the sales pitch be? I am seriously interested, and as you are arguing
for this model you must have an answer. Second, if I understand you
correctly above, you are implying this is not a 'free service' today,
while it would be under the ITU, sanctioned by governments. Correct? In
your view, how would allocations of IP addresses and ports, and
protocol numbers be made? Last, how would a address policy process look
like under the ITU and international treaties?
- - kurtis -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQZ43HqarNKXTPFCVEQIUrACgv9Hpg5RmN8vYugS3t0Q3iyr0FYkAnjUR
v0FGeE+BWGivra6TgZwNGFPu
=14q1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf