-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> I agree and realize this. However, the let's take that argument out >> in the open and not hide it behind "national security". > > I regret such an agressiveness. I simply listed suggestions I > collected to ask warning, advise, alternative to problems identified > not from inside the internet but from outside. Why don't you simply go inside and find out? There is nothing like first hand knowledge! > I was labelled as a topic of national security because it was to > prepare a menting on national vulnerability to Internet. If it had > been about a Web Information and Services Providers, or User Networks > demands, it would have been the same I know a number of countries that have looked at this from a national perspective. None of them have argued that the ITU is the solution. On the contrary, the distributed control of the Internet is a good value. > I expected warnings, advices, alternative propositions. If you need a > long discssion among specialists to come with that, please do. I am > only interested in an authorized outcome. And we will all thank you > for that. What the collective Internet thinks is documented largely through the IETF process, or related organizations. I think that the issues you are trying to raise are already answered at any point in history as being a reflection of the current set of standards. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.2 iQA/AwUBP8+D+KarNKXTPFCVEQJm9QCgzecWX5+0R1RcADym1rrZHICjvPAAoK2o DBfR0ezNIcNGpKt4bb+J8bGl =HL9l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----