ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: national security

2003-12-02 16:20:18
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


The post KP&Quest updates are a good example of what Govs do not want
anymore.

I can't make this sentence out. Do you mean the diminish of KPNQwest?
In that case, please explain. And before you do: I probably know more
about KPNQwest than anyone else on this list with a handful of
exceptions that where all my colleagues doing the IP Engineering part
with me. Please go on...



Consider the French (original) meaning of "gouvernance". For networks
it would be "net keeping". Many ICANN relational problem would
disappear.

Ok, enough of references to France/French/European. I am born and grown
up in Finland, I have more or less lived in Germany and the Netherlands
for 6-36 months, I live in Sweden since 9 years and I have a resident
in Switzerland. I have worked on building some of the largest Internet
projects in Europe and the largest pan-European networks. Even with
governments trying to meet their needs. So I should be the perfect
match of what you are trying to represent. And I just don't buy any of
your arguments. Sorry.

What would be the difference if the ccNSO resulted from an MoU? It
would permit to help/join with ccTLDs, and RIRs, over a far more
interesting ITU-I preparation. I suppose RIRs would not be afraid an
ITU-I would not be here 2 years from now.

As someone who is somewhat involved in the policy work of the RIRs, I 
really,
really, really want you to elaborate on this.

[Quotes rearranged]

The complexity is that ICANN wants to be two conflicting things
(American and International) and to organize something multinational.

Vint, you will never change that IANA is part of the Internet and
Internet is the current solution of the world for its
datacommunications. So IANA must be involved. ITU is the way govs
cooperate in communications (data, telephone, TV, radio) and where
they have so many mixed interests that they must be cautious (this is
what protects us, the consumers). So ITU must be involved.

If you are serious about becoming multinational, you must disengage
from the US Gov. But IANA will never lose its US Flag without ITU. ITU
will never develop an acceptable higher layers capacity (ITU-I) before
long, without ICANN, ccTLD etc.

So, how long will we have to wait for you to ally (and not to try to
swallow) with ccTLDs and to sit down with Mr. Zao, stop WSIS worrying
and permits jointly care about fostering development and innovation.

I just fail to see this. What is it with the ITU that will give us

        a) More openness? How do I as an individual impact the ITU process?
        b) More effectiveness and a faster adoption rate?
        c) A better representation of end-user needs?

The lack of users networks. Multiorganization TLDs Jerry made
introduced as a reality we started experiencing. Just consider that
the large user networks (SWIFT, SITA, VISA, Amadeus, Mnitel, etc.)
started before 85. OSI brought X.400. CERN brought the Web. But ICANN
- and unreliable technology - blocks ULDs (User Level Domains).

To be honest, none of those networks are really large compared to the
Internet, or in terms of users and especially bandwidth to some of the
large providers.

And, yes, OSI brought X.400 - but I am not really sure what to make out
of that point...:-)

I just note that you never cared about Consumers organizationsn, while
a world e-consumer council would have given you the legitimacy of
billions and the weight to keep Gov partly at large, and satisfied. A
National Security Kit would then be one of the ICANN raisons d'être,
keeping Govs happy.

I think that the national governments that are thinking they need
control over ICANN in order to handle a national emergency simply needs
to understand the problem better. There are non-US governments with
contingency planning that works without any of the I* organizations
being under the control of ITU. I just guess those have done a better
job.

- - kurtis -


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBP8z1zaarNKXTPFCVEQIl0ACgpdZ2UjHU3BoynpqZWqrXOYfAgPEAniOK
+WPzBgPS0MlmT8whXLLEcWup
=illt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>