RE: WCIT outcome?
"Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net> Fri, 04 January 2013 00:59 UTC
Return-Path: <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0236A21F8E10 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 16:59:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <nV4BU-aI+1B2>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Improper folded header field made up entirely of whitespace (char 20 hex): X-Spam-Report: ...that system for details.\n \n Content previ[...]
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nV4BU-aI+1B2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 16:59:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from express.tndh.net (express.tndh.net [IPv6:2001:470:e930:1240:20d:56ff:fe04:4c0a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D545921F8877 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 16:59:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from express.tndh.local ([2001:470:e930:1240:20d:56ff:fe04:4c0a] helo=eaglet) by express.tndh.net with esmtp (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <alh-ietf@tndh.net>) id 1TqvdQ-000AJE-Vv; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:59:51 -0800
From: Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <CAMm+Lwh2cHRY+Dk2_SDtZZmUbPcgRpP89u3DHUcniJDrKrX_pw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMzo+1a0-90dnjnvs48a9DcNN9DY_edF5hH0__4XRuCaLHtL6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjzjLc2-=4EdxwHOi21B3dOBUohYc5hhXZHL_Pk+iBBmQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121229192941.0aae33e8@resistor.net> <CAMm+LwiC0xtJU4vnGFPvAG4VKZdj7Tf3LfW0+pzwxKWTegRREw@mail.gmail.com> <a06240800cd074efd45b8@10.0.1.3> <CAMm+Lwiq+DCzXw572wKs78DG+XzYsJtwCVSPvNuVHSrT=Cr2nA@mail.gmail.com> <a06240809cd0799fee029@[10.0.1.3]> <50E29EE0.1080107@gmail.com> <50E32CAA.4040507@tana.it> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B72A8D6@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B72A8D6@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
Subject: RE: WCIT outcome?
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:59:45 -0800
Message-ID: <00fd01cdea16$c956c720$5c045560$@tndh.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQLSnCD45NDVIWoUK8uGaD7jPXnB3gEvc1PuAjrLSsgB5a8deAKWQNdKAN2rb9oCXP2dawIkCyL3AwUFfZ0BmckBbQJjEZ2ilYybLJA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:470:e930:1240:20d:56ff:fe04:4c0a
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: alh-ietf@tndh.net
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on express.tndh.net); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: lynn.st.amour@isoc.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 00:59:54 -0000
> Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > ... > There are some control points in the Internet but they are rather less critical > than many imagine. IPv6 address space allocations, DNS zone management > and AIS numbers are arguably control points. > > If we can eliminate the control point nature of those resources then the > essential government needs in Internet regulation will have been met and the > need for the ITU to be involved will disappear entirely. There are still concerns > that an ITU-like body could usefully address. A treaty baring cyber-sabotage > would be an important and useful effort that demands a diplomatic approach. > Fred Baker wrote: > > ... > If you want something to fade away, making a fuss about it isn't a useful > approach. The IETF's practice in the past has been to improve the Internet; I > tend to think that's as it should be. > > That said, I'm also of the opinion that preventing a police force from > conducting a proper criminal investigation is not a path to success. We like to > say that the Internet routes around brokenness; so do police forces and > legislative bodies. They define "brokenness" as anything that prevents them > from doing their job, the same way we do. What I would far rather see is a > set of technical mechanisms and supporting law that facilitate legitimate > criminal investigations and expose the other kind. > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > ... > That depended on how the various national monopolists chose to interpret > the rules. In Switzerland we were particularly affected by the fact that the > PTT monopoly was a specific line item in the federal Constitution. In the US, > you had the benefit of Judge Greene. > John Day wrote: > > ... > Also, I would agree with Fred's comment on helping the police. > Although as we all know that can be hard call and one has to hope that the > proper controls are on them as well. The problem as I see it is that it is not a > good idea to try to constrain a new technology to behave like the old > technology. It is the capability they want it shouldn't imply how. Subject thread RE: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?) > John C Klensin wrote: > > ... > That approach and position was contemporaneous with national regulations > in many countries that one could run all of the TCP/IP services one wanted as > long as they were run over the national X.25 profile and sometimes as long as > one claimed they were "transitional" until OSI Connection-mode stabilized. > There might be a useful lesson or two in that bit of history. This entire thread(s) missed the point that about why the governments control / restrict telecom. The national PTT's didn't come into existence because the governments were better at operating those facilities than private enterprise. Even the acronym hints at the evolutionary consolidation and control over the flow of information. The fact that we are not already operating as a collection of PTT(I/W) has more to do with the pace and direction of global government agreements than it does with any special characteristics of the inter-web standards process. Paraphrasing Klensin's point 'use any bit pattern you want as long as it transits the regulated infrastructure', is a case in point about consolidating and controlling the flow of content. The IETF can't get into the realm of defining "legitimate criminal investigations", because defining "legitimate" is the role of governments. The only thing the IETF can / should do is recognize that governments have a role, so facilitating basic information like identity and connection-point is required. Content control is out of scope for any particular government related discussions, but is required by private enterprise so the IETF does get involved, and those results will get used in unintended ways by governments. Attempts to thwart that unintended use will only instigate more explicit attempts at oversight and control over the standards process. Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature of 'the Internet', and they always will be (even the 'reasonable' ones). Managing information flow is how they derive and exercise power (even the 'open' ones use managed leaks to the free press to influence opinion). Assuming that the standards process can be used to mitigate their exercise of power is naive at best. The ITU will continue to exist, if nothing more than a unified voice for the governments to state requirements of each other. How long the IETF gets to stay independent of that will depend on how responsive it is to meeting the needs of governments. If short-sighted attempts at political maneuvering are exposed in the IETF, it will lose its independence and finally bring that process under 'proper control'. It would be wise for the IETF participants to look at the countries that did sign, and why. What is it that they are not getting that they need, and how can that be resolved? To echo Day's point, it is the capability they want/need, not the historical implementation. Some things that are business relationship based and completely incompatible with the evolution of technology like 'calling party pays', are easily dismissed by the 'resource rich', but are absolutely critical to those that have relied on that income to fund the information control organization. Simply acknowledging that this is an area for research and investigation is a first step, which would likely have softened the support the resolution did get. The I* has never been good at, and is not currently equipped to deal with, the business model part of the problem space. At the end of the day, I see this as the root of the unhappiness with the IETF as a standards body. I doubt any of the signatories would argue that the pace of technology evolution under an independent standards process is a problem, *IF* they were getting their business needs met. The only reason to slow and control the pace is to make sure they are able to maintain control over information flow, and evolve / align financial relationships. The IETF needs to either meet those requirements, or acquiesce to the inevitable take-over. Tony PS: if you want to remove IPv6 allocations as a control point, see: tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hain-ipv6-geo-addr-02.txt that approach does require a 'peering business model' to be more like X.75 gateways, but itself does not require shutting down the existing peerings, as they can operate in parallel.
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? Jorge Amodio
- WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Patrik Fältström
- Re: WCIT outcome? SM
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Alessandro Vesely
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Randy Bush
- Re: WCIT outcome? Victor Ndonnang
- Re: WCIT outcome? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: WCIT outcome? SM
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Stewart Bryant
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dmitry Burkov
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Noel Chiappa
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dale R. Worley
- Re: WCIT outcome? ned+ietf
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? David Morris
- Re: [IETF] WCIT outcome? Warren Kumari
- Re: WCIT outcome? SM
- Acoustic couplers (was: Re: WCIT outcome?) ned+ietf
- Re: [IETF] WCIT outcome? Patrik Fältström
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? t.p.
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? Carlos M. Martinez
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?) John C Klensin
- Re: WCIT outcome? Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Acoustic couplers Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: Acoustic couplers Steve Crocker
- Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?) Janet P Gunn
- Re: Acoustic couplers John C Klensin
- Re: Acoustic couplers John C Klensin
- Re: Acoustic couplers Steve Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dale R. Worley
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- RE: WCIT outcome? Tony Hain
- Re: WCIT outcome? Ted Hardie
- Re: WCIT outcome? Patrik Fältström
- RE: WCIT outcome? Tony Hain
- RE: WCIT outcome? SM
- Re: WCIT outcome? Ted Hardie
- Re: Acoustic couplers Dale R. Worley
- Re: WCIT outcome? Randy Bush
- Re: WCIT outcome? Eliot Lear