Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff
Jeffrey, Governments and ccTLDs: A Global Survey at http://www.michaelgeist.ca/geistgovernmentcctlds.pdf Column at http://shorl.com/fastokobruhako [Toronto Star] Think Web's virtually government free? Think again MICHAEL GEIST LAW BYTES This study is seems flawed. Here are a quote from someone who read this: I skimmed through it only briefly, but this so-called survey and the conclusions that the (I am tempted to say: so-called) professor draws from it are downright ridiculous. So, Mr Geist got answers from the governments of 56 countries out of about 250 countries that have ccTLDs. That amounts to an impressive 22 per cent. Of these 22 per cent of all ccTLDs, 47 per cent are government run which equals a shocking 10 per cent of all ccTLDs. It is beyond me how Mr Geist concludes from 10 per cent of all ccTLDs being government run that governments are generally deeply involved in domain name administration, even more so as it is pretty safe to assume that the governments that did not answer are those that are not involved in domain name administration and have no interest in getting involved. Also, Mr Geist obviously ignored those countries for which not the government, but the registry answered his survey - as it was the case for XXX. If Winston Churchill had seen this, I am sure his famous quote would have been: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics - and surveys tampered with by Mr Geist ;p jaap
Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III
Franck said: Well to come back to my original comment, is that IETF, IANA and ICANN by being individual members organisations do not have the front of ITU, which is unfortunate as the Internet is not being done in ITU. Governments have to understand that and for that dissociate themselves from the old telco concept... Interesting point. IETF, IANA and even (maybe) ICANN should have a banner advertising program, so many/most/nearly all websites have an anchor/link to a constituentcy web precence explaining where internet came from. You people in the list that represent big money... CISCO, Motorola, Juniper, etc: If ITU get in this, the pace of innovation will cease. I mean, they like H.323 not SIP and X.400 Email. So this will materially hurt your business. Here's what they will do if there allowed to: Make pacts with federal goverments; (like the GSA and European Union), to only buy stuff conforming to there standards, which evolve as slowly as possible and are designed to make only incremental investments in hardware likely. So... The big contracts are pulled. Nodays, the civilian pull is pretty big, so this isn't a full stop. I mean, linksys care far more about what the buyer thinks at Wallmart than the D.O.D. But at some level, this (proposed) string pulling will hurt network advancement. So its worth developing a paid ad campaign, but hopefully most if not all the media should be on the web itself. Of course, a paper sack of unmarked bills always helps when dealing with professional polititians. This is totally a hardcore I told you so issue. I hope I'm wrong, but if it plays out badly you will think; Dad-burn-it! he was right back in 2003!. Regards, Dan
Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff
At 07:30 PM 12/3/2003, Dean Anderson wrote... There are, though, good reasons to have some government controls on telecom. Whether these controls are too excessive or too lax is not up to ICANN or the ITU. I can think of cases were some good has come of it. E911, for example. Radio, TV, cellphone allocations. Ham Radio licences. If license-free wireless operation weren't restricted in power, few people would be able to use 802.11 because one company would be broadcasting at hundreds of watts, etc. None of what you mention is even remotely comparable to the Internet. RF spectrum is a naturally shared, limited medium. Because physical law cannot be changed, manmade laws must be used to regulate it for efficient use. No such case can be made for the Internet, which is not bounded in either bandwidth or number of connections in any practical sense. It is also not something which can be subjected to any sort of control, as it is not a thing. The Internet is strictly an intellectual construct, nothing more. There is nothing physical or real to control. It's a bunch of network operators who have agreed to interconnect using agreed-upon protocols. Sure, some governments can try to control some of the physical media which the Internet makes use of, but getting around that is simply a matter of reconfiguration.
Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III
On 06:27 04/12/03, Paul Vixie said: there's plenty to worry about wrt the big boys controlling things, but the internet is definitionally and constitutionally uncontrollable. yay! This seems untrue in terms of operations if I refer myself to the USG relations with the nets. This sounds like talking about a serial killer to me if you talk about the impact of the Internet on real people's life. I am afraid it is also technically extremely confuse. The missing subjects and mssing URLs in: http://www.iab.org/documents/resources/architectural-issues.html say a lot to non internuts trying to understand it. Unless you might have a better focal portal? Right now, many Governments uses http://whitehouse.gov/pcipb as an entry point into the internet issues. thank you. jfc
RE: Ietf ITU DNS stuff
At 10:45 AM 12/4/2003, Steve Silverman wrote... The Internet is _in part_ an intellectual construction but so is the telephone network. I disagree. It doesn't do much without a physical implementation. Cognitive thought doesn't exist without a brain. That doesn't mean that thought is only _in part_ an intellectual construction. :-) Whatever rights you, I, or anyone else may think are inalienable, in many parts of the world, the only rights anyone has are what the government allows. I'm not saying I like with this but as a practical matter, if the government controls the switches and can throw people in jail (or simply shoot them), it can also restrict what is implemented on the network equipment. Many governments have over time attempted to control thought and personal speech, and none has been successful for any extended period of time. The Internet is no different, as it is easily re-configured and is by design self-healing.
RE: Ietf ITU DNS stuff
The Internet is _in part_ an intellectual construction but so is the telephone network. It doesn't do much without a physical implementation. Whatever rights you, I, or anyone else may think are inalienable, in many parts of the world, the only rights anyone has are what the government allows. I'm not saying I like with this but as a practical matter, if the government controls the switches and can throw people in jail (or simply shoot them), it can also restrict what is implemented on the network equipment. Steve Silverman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike S Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 9:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dean Anderson Subject: Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff At 07:30 PM 12/3/2003, Dean Anderson wrote... There are, though, good reasons to have some government controls on telecom. Whether these controls are too excessive or too lax is not up to ICANN or the ITU. I can think of cases were some good has come of it. E911, for example. Radio, TV, cellphone allocations. Ham Radio licences. If license-free wireless operation weren't restricted in power, few people would be able to use 802.11 because one company would be broadcasting at hundreds of watts, etc. None of what you mention is even remotely comparable to the Internet. RF spectrum is a naturally shared, limited medium. Because physical law cannot be changed, manmade laws must be used to regulate it for efficient use. No such case can be made for the Internet, which is not bounded in either bandwidth or number of connections in any practical sense. It is also not something which can be subjected to any sort of control, as it is not a thing. The Internet is strictly an intellectual construct, nothing more. There is nothing physical or real to control. It's a bunch of network operators who have agreed to interconnect using agreed-upon protocols. Sure, some governments can try to control some of the physical media which the Internet makes use of, but getting around that is simply a matter of reconfiguration.
Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff
At 15:17 04/12/03, Mike S wrote: Sure, some governments can try to control some of the physical media which the Internet makes use of, but getting around that is simply a matter of reconfiguration. Dear Mike, I am only interested in technical issues in here. You may realize that the very possibility of what you say is a concern for every user. Who is to carry that reconfiguration? from which authority? with which responsiblity for the consequences? for he people who may be hurt or die from it? for the econmies which can be hurt? Will only be that reconfiguration signed? You may realize that the hacking you describe is act of terrorism if you perform it as a private citizen, and an act of war if you are ordered to carry it. My interest is in hearing about the ways: - to prevent, address and correct such unconsidered moves through practical patches of any nature (people to protect). - to study the solutions to prevent, to make them impossible Why? Because, no one can take seriously a technology/a system of which the designers may write what you write and be technically approved by its technical community. And we all know you are true. I am not in favor if ITU or not in favor if ITU. I am for my secure, safe, stable, innovative use of my own network resources, in a consensual way, with you and others. And I am strongly in favor of an ITU-I - to be shaped by us in common - should ITU be involved. But the first role of the ... 1867 ITU is to make sure for you to use your phone and TV even with countries at war. The same as the Postal Union is to make sure that you can send mail to countries at war. When I see the size of my spam junker in peace time, I am not sure the Internet currently got the same kind of solution. I am not sure the Internet continued operating in Iraq. Is there a technical way against spam for example? All I see here is please, call in the lawBut law is not the USG outside of the USA. Law is necessarily ITU. Because Law is States and for 136 years States use ITU to address/fight their communications related issues. The 190 of them. That helps and serves the citizens of every of them. You would be surprized to learn that ITU (Embassador's Lounge) is probably the place in the world where the more open or undercover military actions were decided ... to free the telegaph, the telex, the telephone during wars, revolutions, for 136 years. For you to be able to use them as much as possible 24/365. Again, I am not interested in political comments. But in technical responses about technical or archtectural ideas to make sure the Internet cannot be used as the terrorist bomb you describe. Every idea welcome. jfc
Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff
--On Thursday, 04 December, 2003 18:29 +0100 jfcm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Is there a technical way against spam for example? All I see here is please, call in the lawBut law is not the USG outside of the USA. Law is necessarily ITU. Because Law is States and for 136 years States use ITU to address/fight their communications related issues. The 190 of them. Jefsey, ITU-T is quite insistent that they make _Recommendations_ only. Interpretation and enforcement is up to each individual government. They also insist that they have never, and do not intend to try, to extend or interpret the provisions of the radio frequency treaties that permits the Radio Bureau (and WARC) to make binding regulations about, e.g., frequency use, to extend to telephony, the Internet, or similar topics. That is in sharp contrast to your Law is necessarily ITU assertion... sharp enough that, if logic is applied, there are only two possibilities: (1) The senior ITU personnel who fairly regularly make those statements are trying to obscure their real power and plans, if not outright lying about them. If that were true --and, for the record, I don't believe it is-- it would be irrational to trust them with the Internet or anything else. (2) You are speaking nonsense, to the extent that it is probably irrational for any of us to continue reading or responding to your messages. john
Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III
It always striked me that a programme as popular as BBC Click online, never showed up at an ISOC (INET) or IETF meeting, but went to meetings where the Internet is made (Internet World, CeBit,...) Cheers On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 01:14, Dan Kolis wrote: So... The big contracts are pulled. Nodays, the civilian pull is pretty big, so this isn't a full stop. I mean, linksys care far more about what the buyer thinks at Wallmart than the D.O.D. But at some level, this (proposed) string pulling will hurt network advancement. So its worth developing a paid ad campaign, but hopefully most if not all the media should be on the web itself. Of course, a paper sack of unmarked bills always helps when dealing with professional polititians. This is totally a hardcore I told you so issue. I hope I'm wrong, but if it plays out badly you will think; Dad-burn-it! he was right back in 2003!. Regards, Dan Franck Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] SOPAC, Fiji GPG Key fingerprint = 44A4 8AE4 392A 3B92 FDF9 D9C6 BE79 9E60 81D9 1320 Toute connaissance est une reponse a une question G.Bachelard
Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 01:05, jfcm wrote: On 06:27 04/12/03, Paul Vixie said: there's plenty to worry about wrt the big boys controlling things, but the internet is definitionally and constitutionally uncontrollable. yay! This seems untrue in terms of operations if I refer myself to the USG relations with the nets. This sounds like talking about a serial killer to me if you talk about the impact of the Internet on real people's life. I am afraid it is also technically extremely confuse. The missing subjects and mssing URLs in: http://www.iab.org/documents/resources/architectural-issues.html say a lot to non internuts trying to understand it. Unless you might have a better focal portal? Right now, many Governments uses http://whitehouse.gov/pcipb as an entry point into the internet issues. And they are WRONG! Once again, they deal with the Internet in the wrong forum. They are trying to deal with issues with people who have no power or at best proxy power on how the Internet is made. It is a waste of resources. The old schema of political organisation and telecommunication is being challenged by the Internet and people try to hold onto it, like they hold on their monopolies, or their office. There would be here a sense in the Internet of alter mondialisation that I would not be surprised. Surprisingly too, it is the most communist (Internet is for Everyone) project that ever came out of the USA. So we better spend our energies explaining to traditional structures, where the decisions are made, by who and why... Get them a plane ticket to the next IETF, INET, IAB, ICANN meeting and stop to move this discussion to places where decisions cannot be implemented... (Don't ask a bus driver to change the traffic lights...) Cheers Franck Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] SOPAC, Fiji GPG Key fingerprint = 44A4 8AE4 392A 3B92 FDF9 D9C6 BE79 9E60 81D9 1320 Toute connaissance est une reponse a une question G.Bachelard
Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff
John C Klensin; ITU-T is quite insistent that they make _Recommendations_ only. W.r.t. enforcement, ITU-T makes standards, regardless of whether it is called recommendations or requests for comments. Interpretation and enforcement is up to each individual government. No. WTO agreement helps a lot for them to enforce ITU standards. Masataka Ohta
Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff
Mike S wrote: [..] Many governments have over time attempted to control thought and personal speech, and none has been successful for any extended period of time. OT, but in my more cynical moments i'm inclined to think govt (societal) control of thought and speech has been far more common throughout human history than the alternative. (insert ob. in the long run we're all dead) gja
Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff
I don't mean to say I think excessive government control is a good thing. Rather, this is a political question that ICANN/IETF/IANA has to avoid. The ITU has avoided this studiously for decades, throughout the cold war even. As I think you note, its just is the way it is. As the saying goes 'we give functionality, not policy.' There are, though, good reasons to have some government controls on telecom. Whether these controls are too excessive or too lax is not up to ICANN or the ITU. I can think of cases were some good has come of it. E911, for example. Radio, TV, cellphone allocations. Ham Radio licences. If license-free wireless operation weren't restricted in power, few people would be able to use 802.11 because one company would be broadcasting at hundreds of watts, etc. --Dean On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Dan Kolis wrote:
Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 13:19, Dan Kolis wrote: Dean said: There are, though, good reasons to have some government controls on telecom. Whether these controls are too excessive or too lax is not up to ICANN or the ITU. I can think of cases were some good has come of it. E911, for example. Radio, TV, cellphone allocations. Ham Radio licences. If license-free wireless operation weren't restricted in power, few people would be able to use 802.11 because one company would be broadcasting at hundreds of watts, etc. Well, you know both charters and constitutions can be revised with consent. Of course, you're right, some brokerage and allocation is necessary. Italy had a UHF Don't care policy for low power TV and it turned out to be probably not in the public interest. Still the essence of all this is content versus communications. The general idea surely of the ITU came about exactly in the context of limited frequencies and power, etc. So, fine. Coordination of this is reasonable. Internet needs *far* less of this thinking then any previous globally built system. The reason is, mostly you have 65535 ways to do most anything... minimum and some odd hundreds of millions of places/machines/people to do it. If Internet didn't exist in its present form and work... ITU types would make dire predictions over how without regulation it simply wouldn't work independent of content. The argument would be framed as a common sense technological issue. The variant of it is unless the real adults take over... sooner of later (FILL_IN_THE_BLANK) will hyjack it, trust us! (FILL_IN_THE_BLANK) is Pornographers | Spammers | Terrorists | Microsoft | Mumbo_Jumbo | etc. I'm trying to seek in my little gray matter even one benefit of having the ITU do anything with the DNS. I mean, maybe somebody can point out a URL of something with an upside to it whatsoever. In January, some obscure protocol is going to link Internet *IN GENERAL REALLY* to two orbiters around Mars to talk to little buggies which hopefully will land and work. So this thinking, so far has not only worked here quite well, but even seems to be usable off planet. Am I missing something? Regsards, Dan I hope this isn't too far afield of ietf stuffola. I'm kinda of worried about that, (but no too worried to click on SEND) Well to come back to my original comment, is that IETF, IANA and ICANN by being individual members organisations do not have the front of ITU, which is unfortunate as the Internet is not being done in ITU. Governments have to understand that and for that dissociate themselves from the old telco concept... Franck Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] SOPAC, Fiji GPG Key fingerprint = 44A4 8AE4 392A 3B92 FDF9 D9C6 BE79 9E60 81D9 1320 Toute connaissance est une reponse a une question G.Bachelard
Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III
I find this and a couple of other threads completely and totally fascinating. I find myself wondering who really is dialed in to what's going on and who isn't. And that includes Vint. Of all the people that stay tuned in, Vint is the one that should know. The things that are going on are not being addressed directly and honestly in this thread or any other public thread. The people that are pulling the strings don't do it on these threads or in public. That's a good thing and a bad thing. Good that technonerds like ourselves can air things out in public, try, and still believe thiskeeps things in the open and honest. Bad that if we believe that we can really affect important things here,we will wake up one day to find out all our words and thoughts and trying were flushed by the people that want to control, and don't care for our input. It's just a sign of the times. And a sign that the Internet has succeeded so well that the big boys want to control it. For their own purposes. And they will. The simplest clue is that the IETF (supposedly) once consisted of individuals working for common interests, but now there or very few that speak for themselves. They are captive to their employer or contractor (for you "academicians" out there that want to pretend your motives are pure).
Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III
... just a sign of the times. And a sign that the Internet has succeeded so well that the big boys want to control it. For their own purposes. And they will. to misquote john gilmore, the internet interprets control as damage and routes around it. anything nonconsensual ends up self-marginalizing. look at software implementations of internet-series protocols for examples. the implementations with the most control over the present and future of these protocols are the ones with unclear ownership that are given away for free. there's plenty to worry about wrt the big boys controlling things, but the internet is definitionally and constitutionally uncontrollable. yay! -- Paul Vixie
