-----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...
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.
I was there when KPNQwest went down. I think I have concluded that what
you are referring to was a machine called ns.eu.net. That machine has a
history that goes back to the beginning of the Internet in Europe.
Through mergers and acquisitions it ended up on the KPNQWest network.
It was secondary for a large number of domains, including ccTLDs. When
KPNQwest down, the zone content and address block was transfered to
RIPE NCC. As far as I can tell it is still there. TLDs where asked to
move away from the machine over time.
As a matter of fact, several studies the year before KPNQwest went
down, pointed out the problem with having all the worlds TLDs using
just a few machines as slave servers. However, the DNS is designed to
work fine even with one slave not reachable. So even if ns.eu.net would
have gone off-line abruptly, which it never did, people got, and
apparently still have, plenty of time to move. I think this incident
clearly shows the robustness of the current system, more than anything
else.
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.
IETF and ICANN in this prospect are two completely different
organizations and processes. In IETF, you are making yourself heard.
Quite a lot actually.
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?
It certainly doesn't strike me as open at least. I have read the
following : http://www.itu.int/wsis/participation/accreditation.html.
An organization where I have to apply for accreditation doesn't sound
open to me. Actually I am not even sure what WSIS expect as input. To
me it seems as a forum for governments to be seen. With the hope that
they will have a forum where they can raise issues to other governments.
What I am missing is a) The input of the professionals b) How they
expect to use any eventual output.
Again, I fail to see what the ITU process gives that have a clear
advantage over the current IETF process. And as said, there are also
governments who have come to understand this and learnt how to deal
with the IETF process at the same time as making contingency planning.
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.
So you are saying that the ITU will provide better standards at fast
speed? That has most certainly not been the case before...
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:
The IETF makes decisions by rough consensus. If you have a point that
is valid enough, you will get enough people to support you. If not,
life goes on.
- question are disputed. I learned a long ago that questions are never
stupid, but responses may be.
No, but the question might tell a lot about who you are and what your
motives are.
- 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.
Knowing peoples background is always helpful in understanding a
discussion.
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.
I just fail to see what advantage that .swift will give over swift.org
or swift.com etc...
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 :-)
you said that ICANN should have given them a Security Kit. I say it's
more or less there. And is use.
- - kurtis -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2
iQA/AwUBP8+gg6arNKXTPFCVEQJMwwCeJcgzCjndwqRJqIa5PhaWDoaxIDMAnRoY
8ra0xOCQJNi12KyTDiz/jQ9F
=qxW7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----