Re: WCIT outcome?
Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> Tue, 01 January 2013 22:14 UTC
Return-Path: <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>
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 9069C1F0CF7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:14:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Ro6GAzlbs39N for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:14:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bela.nlnetlabs.nl (bela.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1:222:4dff:fe55:4ccb]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921791F0C3E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:13:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NLnetLabs.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bela.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r01MDgPM066363; Tue, 1 Jan 2013 23:13:42 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jaap@NLnetLabs.nl)
Message-Id: <201301012213.r01MDgPM066363@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
To: John Day <jeanjour@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?
In-reply-to: <a06240815cd08da399dc6@[10.0.1.3]>
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> <a06240815cd08da399dc6@[10.0.1.3]>
Comments: In-reply-to John Day <jeanjour@comcast.net> message dated "Tue, 01 Jan 2013 13:32:50 -0500."
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:13:42 +0100
From: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bela.nlnetlabs.nl [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:13:45 +0100 (CET)
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.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: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 22:14:08 -0000
It is of course all history, but allow me some remarks (in line). Thanks Brian, That helps clear up a few things. See below for a couple of questions: At 8:31 AM +0000 1/1/13, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >I'v been hesitating to join in here because this seems distinctly OT >to me, but there are some basics that need to be understood: > >On 31/12/2012 21:08, John Day wrote: >> At 1:05 PM -0500 12/31/12, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM, John Day >>> <<mailto:jeanjour@comcast.net>jeanjour@comcast.net> wrote: > >... >>> MPs and Congressmen are elected decision makers. ITU participants can >>> make decisions but they are not binding on anyone and only have effect >>> if people like me choose to implement them. >> >> This was my point. The standards part of ITU is just like any other >> standards organization. But there are other things it does which are not >> like this, e.g. spectrum allocation. There are other aspects with >> respect to tariffs that are binding on signatories. > >Not only tariffs. Historically, it was national enforcement of international >regulations set by CCITT (now known as ITU-T) that prevented interconnection >of leased lines**. But creating a VPN with in an international carrier that crossed national boundaries would not fall under that rule? Actually neither would a VPN operating over a couple of carriers that crossed national boundaries, would it? In the early eigthies, after consulting with the telecom authorithy in the Netherlands we got the green light to move data for third parties, and thus the (then uucp based) EUnet was born. The green light was given in the anticipation of the libiralization of the EU telcom market. And yes, first this was indeed first using (nearly only) dial-up connections but soon some leased lines and of course TCP/IP etc. game into play. >This is an arcane point today, but if CERN hadn't been >able to use its status as an international organization to bypass that >restriction in the 1980s, it's unlikely that TBL and Robert Cailliau would >ever have been able to propagate the web. It's even unlikely that Phill >would have been able to access Usenet newsgroups while on shift as a grad >student on a CERN experiment. ;-) Actually what they don't know won't hurt them. ;-) We were moving files from CERN to Argonne in the 70s through the 360/95 at Rutherford over the ARPANET. Not exactly the way you want to do it but 15 years later I am sure it was upgraded a bit. > >Also, it is exactly because ITU was in charge of resource allocations >such as radio spectrum and top-level POTS dialling codes that it was >a very plausible potential home for IANA in 1997-8, before ICANN was >created. Some of the ITU people who were active in that debate were just >as active in the preparation for WCIT in 2012. Yea, this one is more dicey. Although I think there is an argument that says that you need ccoperation among providers about assignment, but I don't see why governments need to be involved. When phone companies were owned by governments, then it made sense. But phone companies are owned by governments any more. [The RIPE was born out of necessity for coordination of the IP number space]. That doesn't leave much does it? (Not a facetious question, I am asking!) Take care, John > >** CCITT document D.1. The 1988 version includes the restrictions on >use of leased lines: >http://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-D.1-198811-S!!PDF-E&type=items > >The 1991 version is much less restrictive, but it remains the case that >interconnections are all "subject to national laws" and that is the basis >for all national limitations on the Internet today. Nevertheless, the 1991 >revision of D.1 was absolutely essential for the Internet to grow >internationally. > >It would be foolish to imagine that the Internet is in some way immune >to ITU-T regulations, which is why the effort to defeat the more radical >WCIT proposals was so important. > > Brian It seems that this document was already unaware about what was really happening in practice. jaap
- 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