On Dec 29, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: to be honest I prefer don't comment your emails - but this time I changed mu rules...
> > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Jorge Amodio <[email protected]> wrote: > > > As the multistakeholder model and its associated processes, which is far from > perfect, continues to evolve, ITU must be part of the evolution. The issue is > that as an organization they must accommodate and realize that now they are > "part of it" and not "it" anymore. > > ITU must change if it is to survive. But it was merely a means to an end. > There is no reason that the ITU 'must' be kept in existence for its own sake. > > Tim Berners-Lee has on numerous W3C AC meetings reminded people about the > X-Windows consortium that did its job and then shut down. X-Windows was dead from the beginning - we lost more regarding patents and html is still under- or overdeveloped:) But the key point was not attack against ITU - but test the idea to replace Yalta agreements (it means - first test to replace UN) > > > > There is also a big confusion and still lack of a clear consensus on what > "Internet governance" means or entitles, and many take it as "governing the > Internet," hence governments want a piece of the action, and the constant and > many times intended perception that the Internet is controlled by the USG and > its development and evolution is US centric, which I believe at IETF we know > since long time ago is not true. But many countries, and as you well say > those where there was or still is a single telecom operator and controlled by > government, see it that way. > > Many parts of the world do not understand the difference between a standard > and a regulation or law. Which is why they see control points that don't > worry us. I do not see a problem with the US control of the IPv6 address > supply because I know that it is very very easy to defeat that control. ICANN > is a US corporation and the US government can obviously pass laws that > prevent ICANN/IANA from releasing address blocks that would reach certain > countries no matter what Crocker et. al. say to the contrary. But absent a > deployed BGP security infrastructure, that has no effect since the rest of > the planet is not going to observe a US embargo. > > I can see that and most IETF-ers can see that. But the diplomats representing > Russia and China cannot apparently. Which is probably not surprising given > the type of education their upper classes (sorry children of party bosses) > receive. Don't think so - that these diplomats were so stupid that they knew nothing about real situation :) Another issue - how clever they were in concrete event? > > > > The same forces that pushed at WCIT will keep doing the same thing on other > international fora to insist with their Internet governance agenda, the ITRs > will become effective in Jan 2015, two years, which on Internet time is an > eternity, and it will be only valid if those countries that signed ratify the > treaty. Meanwhile packets keep flowing, faster, bigger and with more > destinations, not bad for a packet switching network that was not supposed to > work. (During WCIT I was wondering, could you imagine doing the webcast via > X.25? ) > > Two years may be longer than some of the unstable regimes have left. I can't > see Syria holding out that long and nor it appears can Russia. The next > dominoes in line are the ex-Soviet republics round the Caspian sea where > having the opposition boiled alive is still considered an acceptable means of > control. You are absolutely wrong when put Syria in one line... And I think that nobody can garantee absolute stability - be careful with such predictions. History showed us that the most stable leading countries can be easily dropped down... > > > I agree that it is not clear what the outcome of WCIT12 was, but something > that is clear is that ITU needs to evolve, or as Vint characterized them, the > "dinosaurs" will become extinct. > I think that first of all - Vint also should estimate himself and Tony ( of course) - who are these dinosaurs? :) > I think that what we should be doing is to help the ITU become extinct by > eliminating the technical control points that would make ITU oversight of > Internet governance necessary. > > This does not need to entail a great deal of technical changes but does > require that we accept that they do have a valid interest. > > dima > -- > Website: http://hallambaker.com/
