Paul Wilson and Geoff Huston of APNIC on IP address allocation ITU v/s ICANN etc
http://www.circleid.com/article/1045_0_1_0_C/ That's a must read article, I'd say. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
At 07:41 AM 20-04-05 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/article/1045_0_1_0_C/
That's a must read article, I'd say.
Thank you Paul & Geoff! The WGIG and ITU have lost all sembelence of reason in their proposals and I have stopped reading them, which might be a mistake. Glad someone is taking them on. -Hank
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
--On Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:41 AM +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/article/1045_0_1_0_C/
That's a must read article, I'd say.
The article seems to be well put and well thought out explanation of what 'we' know. That you can't produce IP addresses. These sorts of articles need to be published more regularly and shoved in the faces of the politico's. Why? Because they don't necessarily understand the problems at hand. We all would love for them to I'm sure, but often times they don't. Many thanks for pointing this little gem out Suresh.
On 4/20/05, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/article/1045_0_1_0_C/
That's a must read article, I'd say.
Followup article by Paul Wilson - http://www.circleid.com/article.php?id=1049_0_1_0_C/ The Geography of Internet Addressing -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
On that note, I suggest that folks from the NANOG community get involved with CircleID. Its a great site with articles on everything from DNS and addressing issues to domain naming and ICANN. It sometimes misses the network operator perspective - a few articles or comments by some of the folks on this list would be very helpful (see Geoff and Suresh's contributions for evidence of this) Thanks, Dan On 4/25/05 9:36 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/05, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/article/1045_0_1_0_C/
That's a must read article, I'd say.
Followup article by Paul Wilson - http://www.circleid.com/article.php?id=1049_0_1_0_C/ The Geography of Internet Addressing
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: : : On 4/20/05, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote: : > http://www.circleid.com/article/1045_0_1_0_C/ : > : > That's a must read article, I'd say. : : Followup article by Paul Wilson - : http://www.circleid.com/article.php?id=1049_0_1_0_C/ : The Geography of Internet Addressing Probably, I'll have to research through the ITU site to find out this information, but surely these arguments have been presented to the ITU while they're making their choice of how to proceed with IP address allocation. Does anyone have a couple of links that support their position for doing it the "national allocations" way? scott
Probably, I'll have to research through the ITU site to find out this information, but surely these arguments have been presented to the ITU while they're making their choice of how to proceed with IP address allocation.
and arguments were presented to bolton that his cuban/syrian/... agenda was not supported by reality. did that change his agenda? the itu: bridge building across the digital divide by the same folk who brought us the analog divide. and if you believe the'll do it, then i have this bridge ... randy
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote: : > Probably, I'll have to research through the ITU site to find out this : > information, but surely these arguments have been presented to the ITU : > while they're making their choice of how to proceed with IP address : > allocation. : : and arguments were presented to bolton that his cuban/syrian/... agenda : was not supported by reality. did that change his agenda? : : the itu: bridge building across the digital divide by the same folk who : brought us the analog divide. and if you believe the'll do it, then i : have this bridge ... No, I don't believe they'll do it correctly. I was just wondering why they'd chose to do it the "national allocation" way when good arguments are presented that it'd only disrupt things. I thought they may have a good reason, but evidently it's just not true. It's just more bureaucratic ignorance of what is being legislated. I'll just start reading the site's info before resopnding further. I thought someone here might point me in a direction where I could get to the info faster. I replied to the list as IP addressing is so central to network operations and the 2 references were also posted here. I may have made a mistake. I know how these things slide off topic faster than a greased pig on a plastic sheet on a steep hillside. ;-) scott
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:41:07AM -1000, Scott Weeks wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
: > Probably, I'll have to research through the ITU site to find out this : > information, but surely these arguments have been presented to the ITU : > while they're making their choice of how to proceed with IP address : > allocation. : : and arguments were presented to bolton that his cuban/syrian/... agenda : was not supported by reality. did that change his agenda? : : the itu: bridge building across the digital divide by the same folk who : brought us the analog divide. and if you believe the'll do it, then i : have this bridge ...
No, I don't believe they'll do it correctly. I was just wondering why they'd chose to do it the "national allocation" way when good arguments are presented that it'd only disrupt things. I thought they may have a good reason, but evidently it's just not true. It's just more bureaucratic ignorance of what is being legislated. I'll just start reading the site's info before resopnding further. I thought someone here might point me in a direction where I could get to the info faster.
I replied to the list as IP addressing is so central to network operations and the 2 references were also posted here. I may have made a mistake. I know how these things slide off topic faster than a greased pig on a plastic sheet on a steep hillside. ;-)
scott
Scott, it pays to understand tht the ITU has -zero- interest in actual operations. They do what their members tell them and the only entities that can be members are nations/governments. Hence the stated desire for "national allocations" as a way to re-enforce national pride. Operational networking is not a goal, "equity of resource distribution" is. No well reasoned argument (such as Paul & Geoff's) can make any substantive impact, excep;t to the extent that we (you/me) can beat our respective government representatives into understanding that "WE" want things a certain way (working) and would they -please- cooperate with their citizens and not pander so some special interests. and yes, i am biased here - do your own research and make up your own mind. --bill
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 08:52:04PM +0000, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote a message of 49 lines which said:
the only entities that can be members are nations/governments.
This is no longer true (for several years). Corporations ("Sector members") can now join (ITU is the only UN organization which does that). See http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/mm.list?_search=SEC So, like ICANN, governements and big corporations are represented at the ITU. Like ICANN, ordinary users are excluded.
--On 28 April 2005 10:47 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
This is no longer true (for several years). Corporations ("Sector members") can now join (ITU is the only UN organization which does that). See http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/mm.list?_search=SEC
I think Bill is actually correct. ITU is a treaty organization. Only members of the UN (i.e. countries). ITU-T (and ITU-R, ITU-D) are sector organizations that telcos can join (AIUI the difference having arisen when a meaningful difference arose between telco and state monopoly). However, given the entire organization is run by the ITU, it's fair to say it is essentially a governmental organization run with some private sector involvement. Whereas ...
So, like ICANN, governements and big corporations are represented at the ITU. Like ICANN, ordinary users are excluded.
... ICANN is billed as a private sector organization with government involvement. Obviously the extent of the involvement of the private sector (and non-commercial sectors), and the extent to which one likes the ICANN model are all up for extensive debate, preferably on somewhere other than this mailing list. Alex
On 4/28/2005 05:00, Alex Bligh allegedly wrote:
I think Bill is actually correct. ITU is a treaty organization. Only members of the UN (i.e. countries). ITU-T (and ITU-R, ITU-D) are sector organizations that telcos can join (AIUI the difference having arisen when a meaningful difference arose between telco and state monopoly). However, given the entire organization is run by the ITU, it's fair to say it is essentially a governmental organization run with some private sector involvement. Whereas ...
An ITU publication says the majority of ITU members, including member states and sector members, are now vendors.
--On 28 April 2005 07:06 -0400 Scott W Brim <swb@employees.org> wrote:
I think Bill is actually correct. ITU is a treaty organization. Only members of the UN (i.e. countries). ITU-T (and ITU-R, ITU-D) are sector organizations that telcos can join (AIUI the difference having arisen when a meaningful difference arose between telco and state monopoly). However, given the entire organization is run by the ITU, it's fair to say it is essentially a governmental organization run with some private sector involvement. Whereas ...
An ITU publication says the majority of ITU members, including member states and sector members, are now vendors.
Members yes, if you count sector members. But as far as I can tell, the ITU is ultimately controlled by its council, which are state representatives elected by a plenipotentiary committee of states. Here's the ITU's own take, which seems to agree with me: http://www.itu.int/aboutitu/overview/council.html Note the remit of the Council:
The role of the Council is to consider, in the interval between plenipotentiary conferences, broad telecommunication policy issues to ensure that the Union’s activities, policies and strategies fully respond to today’s dynamic, rapidly changing telecommunication environment. It also prepares the ITU strategic plan. In addition, the Council is responsible for ensuring the smooth day-to-day running of the Union, coordinating work programmes, approving budgets and controlling finances and expenditure. Finally, the Council takes all steps to facilitate the implementation of the provisions of the ITU Constitution, the ITU Convention, the Administrative Regulations (International Telecommunication Regulations and Radio Regulations), the decisions of plenipotentiary conferences and, where appropriate, the decisions of other conferences and meetings of the Union
Just like any organization (and this is without criticism of the ITU), when talking to a given audience, it tries to make itself appear most attractive to that audience. Thus it emphasizes private sector involvement when talking to the private sector. I am quite sure that when talking to African nations, it also emphasizes that there are more Region D (African) states on the council than their are either Region A (Americas) or region B (Western Europe). That's politics. I'm am trying to provide objective information here rather than opinion. It's not as if ICANN is beyond criticism: it could equally be argued that ICANN has *no* members (of the corporation) as such, and that the way its board is elected is at least non-trivial to understand. However, characterizing the ITU as a private sector dominated organization (let alone an organization dominated by private sector players relevant to the internet) is not accurate (at least not today - I understand they are making overtures towards internet companies - see WGIG/WSIS side meetings). Alex
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
So, like ICANN, governements and big corporations are represented at the ITU. Like ICANN, ordinary users are excluded.
I think groups like the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (http://gnso.icann.org/non-commercial/) and the At Large Advisory Committee (http://alac.icann.org/) would disagree with that perspective. :) Doug -- If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough
I think the non-commercial users constituency would agree ordinary users are excluded. We say it all the time. And the ALAC is just about meaningless and quite quite powerless. On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Doug Barton wrote:
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
So, like ICANN, governements and big corporations are represented at the ITU. Like ICANN, ordinary users are excluded.
I think groups like the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (http://gnso.icann.org/non-commercial/) and the At Large Advisory Committee (http://alac.icann.org/) would disagree with that perspective. :)
Doug
-- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<--
On 28-apr-2005, at 19:20, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
I think the non-commercial users constituency would agree ordinary users are excluded.
Well, I only ever attended one ICANN meeting but it did strike me that the attendees were very concerned about getting regular users involved with the ICANN process. But by and large, the average users don't know or care about ICANN.
We say it all the time.
Oh, it must be true then.
I was just wondering why they'd chose to do it the "national allocation" way when good arguments are presented that it'd only disrupt things.
because that is what they know from the telco numbering plan. and it lets them play the "this should be run by governments plan, the folk from whom they are used to drawing their power. just imagine what it must feel like to have run a global monopoly game with brandy, cigars, a building in geneve` and many fine lunches and dinners, and to have a disruptive technology blind-side you from both the engineering and political/social vectors at the same time. they're as desperate as the riaa and movie owners; if we can't figure out the market, send in the lawyers and politicians as a holding action until we can.
I thought they may have a good reason, but evidently it's just not true.
to the itu, and circuitzilla in general, if it worked for voice, then it must work for the internet, no real understanding required. randy
On 4/28/05, Scott Weeks <surfer@mauigateway.com> wrote:
Probably, I'll have to research through the ITU site to find out this information, but surely these arguments have been presented to the ITU while they're making their choice of how to proceed with IP address allocation. Does anyone have a couple of links that support their position for doing it the "national allocations" way?
Poke around http://www.nro.net for a detailed correspondence + submissions on both sides between the RIRs and ITU-T -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
In a message written on Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 07:41:52AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/article/1045_0_1_0_C/
That's a must read article, I'd say.
If you're interested in these issues I strongly encourage you to read and be involved in your local RIR and/or the IETF processes. "Network engineers" with hands on day to day experience tend to be underrepresented in both forums. For those of you in North America (after all, this is NANOG) check out ARIN's Public Policy Mailing List, information is on ARIN's web site. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
btw, i just remembered something from the distant past which is relevant to geoff's stuff on the wsis geo allocation kink. jon postel tried per-country allocations back in the late '80s. this was especially in the new african networks. e.g. a block to south africa etc. both south africa and jon found it to be a disaster and backed out. uneven policy. big waste. horrible local political pressure on the local allocator. ... it was a mess and gained nothing. unfortunately jon has since died, as has vic shaw the main guy on the south african end. but folk over there such as mike lawrie, jacot guillarmad, chris pinkham, alan barrett should remember. and i have some of the email, fwiw. not that any of this will change the minds of those thinking this a path to increased power. randy
as i've mentioned previously, when proposing a work-around for the mess that a blind use of iso3166 causes for territorial jurisdictions, jon and i were talking about using x.121 _in_theory_ to aggregate what i knew then (and i know still are) technically weak and policy incomplete states in the americas, and africa. we were talking about nics, not nocs, but at that point in time (and now), for some territorial jurisdictions, the distinction is artifician, a 1st worldism. http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/04468.html definitely not that any of this will change the minds of any of the usual cast of morons at the icann smorgy. i don't have my correspondence with jon, some of it was simply chatting at an ietf. eric
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 06:52:26PM -0400, Randy Bush wrote:
btw, i just remembered something from the distant past which is relevant to geoff's stuff on the wsis geo allocation kink.
jon postel tried per-country allocations back in the late '80s. this was especially in the new african networks. e.g. a block to south africa etc.
both south africa and jon found it to be a disaster and backed out. uneven policy. big waste. horrible local political pressure on the local allocator. ... it was a mess and gained nothing.
unfortunately jon has since died, as has vic shaw the main guy on the south african end. but folk over there such as mike lawrie, jacot guillarmad, chris pinkham, alan barrett should remember. and i have some of the email, fwiw.
there are archives in several places...
not that any of this will change the minds of those thinking this a path to increased power.
randy
participants (15)
-
Alex Bligh -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Daniel Golding -
Doug Barton -
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine -
Hank Nussbacher -
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Leo Bicknell -
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law -
Michael Loftis -
Randy Bush -
Scott W Brim -
Scott Weeks -
Stephane Bortzmeyer -
Suresh Ramasubramanian