I would highly recommend reading Paul's comments, as he brings up some very key issues. He also mentioend one of my pet peeves, which is the WGIG's posture on peering arrangements: Vixie says: [snip] "WGIG seems to be concerned about the general lack of interconnection and the anticompetitive cost of entry for new ISPs. One can see the ITU influence here (ITU more or less regulates international telephone service today), but when I think of the way national sovereignty has been abused to turn telecommunications access fees into [ major GDP sources ], I already don't think I'm going to like the endgame if "regulation" occurs in the area of international Internet peering and interconnection." [snip] Seeing as how the Internet isn't a science project anymore, it's a little difficult to reconcile taking something which are now _business_ decisions for many organizations and turing the entire peering issue into regulatory hell. $.02, - ferg -- Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote: http://fm.vix.com/internet/governance/wgig-report-july05.html I like the ending -

I think a lot of hard work went into this report, and considering the number and strength and diversity of views expressed during the WGIG process, the result has to be called herculean. I'm a bit concerned that it amounts to a generally agreed upon statement that "somebody ought to put a bell on that cat". Turning hegemony into democracy by peaceful means has been done only a few times in human history, and the outlook for this time isn't good.

Paul Vixie

-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com) -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/