On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Michel Py <
michel(_at_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us> wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
And what if that something is get the French government to
contribute to a rival to IETF? Or combine with the governments
of Brazil and Mexico to create a larger anti-IETF?
Let them try it. It will fizzle when they lose the little traction they
have now in the fallback of the Snowden leaks. In 2016 when Brazil (you
picked it, not me) hosts the Olympic Games, they lose $100 million of per
click advertizing because they have moved their stuff behind an alternate
root or whatever pipe dream and nobody can access it? Have them eat their
own dog food. History repeats itself; each time there is evidence of
mismanagement from foreign powers, secessionist feelings flare and some
smart @55 will exploit that to their own advantage.
I cannot imagine that dropping the new ICANN TLDs and requiring
French/Brazilian/Indian ISPs chain to a different root that includes the
ccTLDs plus the original seven TLDs would have the effect you suggest.
.com, .net and .org are essential for the running of the Internet. ICANN is
not. If it wasn't for the fact that a breakaway root would likely be under
UN control and give an opening to the countries who would like to impose
global censorship.
The key is IPv6.
Then you have a problem, because France is the only country that has
remotely tried to deploy it.
Phillip, with all due respect for your very valuable past and present
contributions, you're a dreamer. The reason you worry about the idea of the
French government combining with Brazil and Mexico is as invalid as you
think that IPv6 can be deployed. You believe in the dream, the market
believes in money.
The reason I worry about such things is that I work with other people who
are paid to think about such things.
I saw what failing to appreciate the concerns of the French government did
in the case of RFID tags.
Get IPv6 deployed in the real world and then I will pay attention to the
French threat to take over the IETF and the Internet. Otherwise it will get
in the same state of "non-deployment" that is not to be worried about.
I seem to remember that I first pointed out that NAT and middleboxes were
the technical tool for NAT deployment over ten years ago. From a technical
point of view, IPv6 must be completely plug compatible with IPv4, not as
people attempted at the time a gating factor on other technologies.
I could get IPv6 deployed if I had national level resources behind me.
Failing that, create a brand 'Internet 2.0 Ready' and set out a set of
requirements that middlebox etc. providers must meet to display the brand.
Ensure that products that are I2.0 branded are completely network agnostic
and give full service on both the old network and the new, including
mechanisms that make use of NAT-ed addresses on IPv4 fully acceptable.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/