On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
From: "Dean Anderson" <dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com>
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: just a brief note about anycast
...
Well, they think we are the chauvenists of unilateralism. If we had
played more fairly and honestly, they might not be so suspicious of our
How has the IETF been playing unfairly or dishonestly?
Or is the argument that ICANN has been unfair and dishonest?
From their point of view, we (ICANN/IETF/IANA) hasn't really included the
developing world. They participate, but we participate more. From their
point of view, they see the internet as a group of first world countries
imposing control on their infrastructure. We control the root, the TLDs,
and the IP addresses. If they start to depend on the internet, we can
shut down or disrupt their infrastructure anytime we feel like it it.
That's an intentional disruption and they don't trust us not to do that.
I'm ignoring accidental and attack issues for now.
motives. And its not just about disconnection. One can already
disconnect if one chooses. So I think the developing world views it as
about freedom from the undue control and influence of a unilateral power.
...
How would replacing ICANN (or the IETF) with the ITU
make things any less unilateral? As I see it, all that it would
accomplish is that it would give governments and corporations
a more direct voice in matters, at the expense of individual
technical contributors.
It may be difficult to explain to people how anti-americanism affects
thing like ICANN/IETF/IANA , or why the developing world especially puts
more trust in the UN than in the US coalition. But that's how it is.
Despite the qualifications of the experts, they arn't trusted. There is a
certain irrationality to this, but also a certain justification to their
perception.
International cooperation is the purpose of the ITU and, as someone
pointed out, it has performed this job for 136 years though 2 world wars
and numerous other conflicts with political neutrality. Moving things to
the the ITU shifts power away from developed world technocrats and
corporations (we) and gives it (as you say) to governments. This makes
sure that the decisions made will be politically neutral with respect to
their governments.
Put another way, there are 190 or so countries. There are, perhaps 30 or
so frequently represented on this list. There are fewer which have
control over the root, the TLDs and the RIRs. If you were in the
under-represented 160 or so countries, generally hostile to or just
untrusting of the top few on this list, what would you want?
Not all 190 countries participate in the ITU, but you can bet that under
the ITU, which gives equal weight to the US as to Sri Lanka, things will
probably change somewhat. Some people on this list, perhaps many, won't
like that. But it will be better than the alternatives.
--Dean