-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > The post KP&Quest updates are a good example of what Govs do not want > anymore. I can't make this sentence out. Do you mean the diminish of KPNQwest? In that case, please explain. And before you do: I probably know more about KPNQwest than anyone else on this list with a handful of exceptions that where all my colleagues doing the IP Engineering part with me. Please go on... > > Consider the French (original) meaning of "gouvernance". For networks > it would be "net keeping". Many ICANN relational problem would > disappear. Ok, enough of references to France/French/European. I am born and grown up in Finland, I have more or less lived in Germany and the Netherlands for 6-36 months, I live in Sweden since 9 years and I have a resident in Switzerland. I have worked on building some of the largest Internet projects in Europe and the largest pan-European networks. Even with governments trying to meet their needs. So I should be the perfect match of what you are trying to represent. And I just don't buy any of your arguments. Sorry. > What would be the difference if the ccNSO resulted from an MoU? It > would permit to help/join with ccTLDs, and RIRs, over a far more > interesting ITU-I preparation. I suppose RIRs would not be afraid an > ITU-I would not be here 2 years from now. As someone who is somewhat involved in the policy work of the RIRs, I really, really, really want you to elaborate on this. [Quotes rearranged] > The complexity is that ICANN wants to be two conflicting things >(American and International) and to organize something multinational. > Vint, you will never change that IANA is part of the Internet and > Internet is the current solution of the world for its > datacommunications. So IANA must be involved. ITU is the way govs > cooperate in communications (data, telephone, TV, radio) and where > they have so many mixed interests that they must be cautious (this is > what protects us, the consumers). So ITU must be involved. > > If you are serious about becoming multinational, you must disengage > from the US Gov. But IANA will never lose its US Flag without ITU. ITU > will never develop an acceptable higher layers capacity (ITU-I) before > long, without ICANN, ccTLD etc. > > So, how long will we have to wait for you to ally (and not to try to > swallow) with ccTLDs and to sit down with Mr. Zao, stop WSIS worrying > and permits jointly care about fostering development and innovation. I just fail to see this. What is it with the ITU that will give us a) More openness? How do I as an individual impact the ITU process? b) More effectiveness and a faster adoption rate? c) A better representation of end-user needs? > The lack of users networks. Multiorganization TLDs Jerry made > introduced as a reality we started experiencing. Just consider that > the large user networks (SWIFT, SITA, VISA, Amadeus, Mnitel, etc.) > started before 85. OSI brought X.400. CERN brought the Web. But ICANN > - and unreliable technology - blocks ULDs (User Level Domains). To be honest, none of those networks are really large compared to the Internet, or in terms of users and especially bandwidth to some of the large providers. And, yes, OSI brought X.400 - but I am not really sure what to make out of that point...:-) > I just note that you never cared about Consumers organizationsn, while > a world e-consumer council would have given you the legitimacy of > billions and the weight to keep Gov partly at large, and satisfied. A > National Security Kit would then be one of the ICANN raisons d'être, > keeping Govs happy. I think that the national governments that are thinking they need control over ICANN in order to handle a national emergency simply needs to understand the problem better. There are non-US governments with contingency planning that works without any of the I* organizations being under the control of ITU. I just guess those have done a better job. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.2 iQA/AwUBP8z1zaarNKXTPFCVEQIl0ACgpdZ2UjHU3BoynpqZWqrXOYfAgPEAniOK +WPzBgPS0MlmT8whXLLEcWup =illt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----