> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
> to stop such things as 'Information terrorism' which is their term for
> freedom of speech.
:-)
> The current governance structure of the Internet does more than merely
> prevent other governments from gaining control of the Internet, it
> grants the US an extraordinary degree of control. Or at least they give
> the appearance of doing so on paper if the checks and balances on that
> control are not sufficiently understood.
Correct; and so it might be worth changing the structure to lessen that
_appearance_ of USG control. But if such changes increase the Internet's
vulnerabiilty to hostile, authoritarian governments, maybe that would not (in
the end) be such a good idea.
> as with the crypto-wars the grand bargain will almost certainly mean
> absolutely nothing.
Not necessarily - see below.
> If the WCIT process results in an over-reach, governments can and will
> leave the ITU.
The latter is unlikely, IMO.
> we should instead focus on the ways that the technical architecture of
> the Internet creates control points that are vulnerable to capture and
> consider ways in which those control points can be made capture-proof.
Agreed.
> The Internet has three separate potential control points: The IP Address
> registry, the DNS name registry and the various registries for protocol
> features.
And it is these that in my perception are really what is at risk in Dubai,
which is why I disagreed (above) that the output of Dubai will necessarily be
a NOOP.
> We need to protect the openness of the Internet. We do not need to
> perpetuate the existence of ICANN, IANA or the RIRs as
> institutions. Maintaining the institutions may be a means of protecting
> the open internet but we should be prepared to walk away from them if
> necessary
I concur that they may be expendable, but others may differ. In particular,
will not whatever replaces them be equally targets? Yes, a shell game may
produce temporary relief, but in the end won't the replacements be equally
targeted for takeover/control?
> If the ITU-T wants to also be in the business of handing out IPv6
> address names then give then a /21 or a /16 and tell them to go
> party. No really, choose your battles.
I basically agree. It could have negative impacts on the routing, by impacting
route aggregatability, but it can hardly be worse that those bletcherous PI
addresses, so if it makes them happy to be in charge of a large /N, why not?
> What I am certain of is that we do not need to rely on the counsels of
> those who tell us that the situation is so complex that we need not
> worry our little heads about it.
Indeed.
Noel