I'm surprised that I've yet to see any mention here on NANOG about the Internet Governance Forum discussions that were held at the WSIS / United Nations summit in Tunisia a few weeks ago. From my reading of the various articles, it appears that the EU together with some developing nations wanted to wrest "control of the Internet" away from the US and ICANN. Was everyone unaware of this, or were you just counting on Vint Cerf to talk sense into the delegates from the other countries? <http://news.com.com/U.N.+says+its+plans+are+misunderstood/2008-1028_3-5959117.html> Then there was ICANN's sudden delay of discussion/approval of .xxx: <http://news.google.com/news?q=icann+xxx> followed by their approval of .asia: http://news.google.com/news?q=icann+asia Is anyone here paying any attention to any of this? jc
* OFF LIST * ----- Original Message ----- From: "JC Dill" <lists05@equinephotoart.com> To: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:23 PM Subject: Let's talk about ICANN
I'm surprised that I've yet to see any mention here on NANOG about the Internet Governance Forum discussions that were held at the WSIS / United Nations summit in Tunisia a few weeks ago. From my reading of the various articles, it appears that the EU together with some developing nations wanted to wrest "control of the Internet" away from the US and ICANN. Was everyone unaware of this, or were you just counting on Vint Cerf to talk sense into the delegates from the other countries?
It's old news by now but I don't see your point in saying Vint would talk "common sense" as if implying taking control away would have been against common sense. I can see the point that countries that put down all sorts of commonly talked about subjects would have made a mash of it but then that is entirely America/ICANN's fault for getting into the situation. Clinton and/or advisors were very smart in his term in office. They could foresee Internet and what it would mean to the world. At the same time they were incredibly dumb. It *SHOULD* have been registered as a company, worldwide and the offered free to all. In that way they could have kept control. Now, though there is some leeway, there is no certainty. Let's face it - when, not "if" China makes it's own version, that will be when the shit hits the fan BUT as they have the Beijing Olympics and wresting control of Internet away from what it is now would seriously harm them, they wont do anything until it is over. THAT is when China will make it's own brand Internet. IMHO, we will end up back in the old BBS days of the 80s except it will be Internet style BBS communication, if this shattering occurs but don't fret too much. There is yet another glimmer of hope on the horizon. Keep an eye on the upcoming 3D computing environment and virtual technology. When that becomes a reliable and cheap enough source, that will replace Internet and if, this time, USA trademarks it as I described above, there should be no problems with people HONESTLY meeting "in cyberspace". Greg.
IMHO, we will end up back in the old BBS days of the 80s except it will be Internet style BBS communication, if this shattering occurs but don't fret too much. There is yet another glimmer of hope on the horizon. Keep an eye on the upcoming 3D computing environment and virtual technology.
I presume you are referring to Open Croquet? http://www.opencroquet.org/ That is merely an application that runs on the Internet, one of many applications like browsers, email servers, IM clients, P2P apps, etc. The political games regarding who can and cannot charge fees for running "official" DNS services have hardly any impact on people communicating over the Internet using a wide variety of applications. ICANN is not and never was the Internet government. Fortunately, it seems to have caught the attention of the get-rich-quick crowd and the resulting ruckus has distracted government players from what is really going on in the Internet. By the time they wise up, it will be too late because the Internet will be such a diverse and slippery fish that no one will be able to grasp it, not even the regulars on this list. --Michael Dillon
Greg wrote:
* OFF LIST *
----- Original Message ----- From: "JC Dill" <lists05@equinephotoart.com> To: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:23 PM Subject: Let's talk about ICANN
I'm surprised that I've yet to see any mention here on NANOG about the Internet Governance Forum discussions that were held at the WSIS / United Nations summit in Tunisia a few weeks ago. From my reading of the various articles, it appears that the EU together with some developing nations wanted to wrest "control of the Internet" away from the US and ICANN. Was everyone unaware of this, or were you just counting on Vint Cerf to talk sense into the delegates from the other countries?
It's old news by now but I don't see your point in saying Vint would talk "common sense" as if implying taking control away would have been against common sense. I can see the point that countries that put down all sorts of commonly talked about subjects would have made a mash of it but then that is entirely America/ICANN's fault for getting into the situation. Clinton and/or advisors were very smart in his term in office. They could foresee Internet and what it would mean to the world. At the same time they were incredibly dumb. It *SHOULD* have been registered as a company, worldwide and the offered free to all. In that way they could have kept control. Now, though there is some leeway, there is no certainty. Let's face it - when, not "if" China makes it's own version, that will be when the shit hits the fan BUT as they have the Beijing Olympics and wresting control of Internet away from what it is now would seriously harm them, they wont do anything until it is over. THAT is when China will make it's own brand Internet.
The are already here: ; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d @hawk2.cnnic.net.cn. ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 7027 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 2 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800 IN SOA ns5.ce.net.cn. tech.ce.net.cn. 2004072009 3600 900 1209600 1800 xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800 IN MX 10 mail.xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800 IN NS ns5.ce.net.cn. xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800 IN A 210.51.169.151 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800 IN NS ns5.ce.net.cn. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: mail.xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800 IN A 210.51.171.29 ns5.ce.net.cn. 716 IN A 210.51.171.200 ;; Query time: 451 msec ;; SERVER: 159.226.6.185#53(hawk2.cnnic.net.cn.) ;; WHEN: Mon Dec 12 13:28:35 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 191 and they can send and receive emails.
IMHO, we will end up back in the old BBS days of the 80s except it will be Internet style BBS communication, if this shattering occurs but don't fret too much. There is yet another glimmer of hope on the horizon. Keep an eye on the upcoming 3D computing environment and virtual technology. When that becomes a reliable and cheap enough source, that will replace Internet and if, this time, USA trademarks it as I described above, there should be no problems with people HONESTLY meeting "in cyberspace".
Greg.
That has been the time when good old uucp linked all those different BBSes and hosts. UUCP is still there. Bye bye M$ outlook :) Next generation resolvers will learn how to use many roots. Next generation email servers will too. The SPAMmers will be the first. -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter@peter-dambier.de mail: peter@echnaton.serveftp.com http://iason.site.voila.fr
participants (4)
-
Greg -
JC Dill -
Michael.Dillonļ¼ btradianz.com -
Peter Dambier