Dear Mr. Lindqvist,
I am afraid I do not understand some of the points you try to make. I will
give basic responses, please do not hesitate to elaborate.
On 21:27 02/12/03, Kurt Erik Lindqvist said:
> 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...
I am refering ("post" KPNQuest) to the reference management lesson ICANN
gave concerning root management when the 66 ccTLD secondaries supported by
KPNQuest were to be updated. NO one will forget at many ccTLDs, and Govs.
> 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.
I suppose that you are living in a French speaking Switzerland part then.
May be people there have not a common command of the XIIIth century French
from North of France (where the word comes from) or from current Senegal
administration (where the word is in current legal use)?
> 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.
Glad you do. I keep your entries to simplify the reading.
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?
This is not the topic (I come initially from a national point of view) and
not to disuss but to listen.
But this is also an IETF separted issue. As deeply involved for years in
@large issues (ICANN) and far longer political, public, coporate,
technology development network issues and for having shared for some years
in the ITU process (at that time CCITT), I think I will say "Yes".
1. As a user I have no impact on IETF ICANN. Not even do not get heard.
2. but (and with a big "but" unlil ITU adapts and created an "I" sector for
us) ITU has the structures and procedures (Focus Groups and Members called
meetings) just to do that.
You may have studied/shared in the WSIS and observed the way it works?
b) More effectiveness and a faster adoption rate?
Probably yes. For a simple reason. Internet is just another technology to
support users data communications needs. I may find faster, better;
parallel solutions else where. Competition fosters speed and quality or
death. As a user I am darwinian about the process I use.
c) A better representation of end-user needs?
Certainly. This is a recurring issue. Quote me the way IETF listen to
end-users needs. I have been flamed enough as a user representative to know
it. And don't tell me "who do you represent?" or I will bore everyone
responding. This thread show it. As a user I rose a question. Responses:
- question are disputed. I learned a long ago that questions are never
stupid, but responses may be.
- question asked back to me: who are you. I appreciate that you may warn me
about KPNQuest to spare us a trolls response. But I wander why the author
would have any impact on a new question.
> 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.
I agree. But I fail to see howit relates to the point?
My point is that SWIFT should have been able to become .swift for a very
long. That .bank was denied to the World Bank Association and that SITA was
given a try with .aero.
So we can technically compare the capacity of Internet to support the needs
of a very, very old network like SITA. It does seem to be very appealing on
the air transportation community. Never saw any ad for "aerolinas.aero" yet
howver the mnemonic interest.
And, yes, OSI brought X.400 - but I am not really sure what to make out of
that point...:-)
This is IETF speaking. SMTP brought us spam. :-)
What we are looking for are good solutions. X.400 architecture is not bad.
The rest is ...odd. But did today someone find a solution for e-mail. I am
working on something "above" - just to keep me abreast - if you have some
French you cast a glance at http://weemail.org . This is a complex issue.
> 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.
I suppose you misundertood the point. I am not sure of your point either,
so I prefer you elaborate. Who could be fool enough to want to take control
over ICANN? Even the USG cannot od it :-)
BTW it is a complex problem to discuss such issues in American language (or
more in broken basic American as I do). Because the only word used is
"control" which may mean many things, but is certainly totally foreign to
the governance of a distrubited network.
So it can only apply to one very very particular point which is the White
House relations with the NTIA. Everywhere else relations are much more
complex.
As a European citizen yourself you konw the meaning of the "concertation"
Eurospeak word which means something complex, precise and efficient in that
area, which had no equivalent in English but that the English inherited
subsidiarity principle made a necessity, after the Maastricht Treaty.
Take care.
jfc