Hi Phillip,
At 11:16 AM 8/2/2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
But there is also another side to the complaints made by Russia, China
and others, a complaint that US dominated organizations like ICANN and
the IETF do not allow sufficient credit for in my view. The current
Is the above about the US having a prominent say in organizations
such as ICANN and the IETF?
governance structure of the Internet does more than merely prevent
other governments from gaining control of the Internet, it grants the
US an extraordinary degree of control. Or at least they give the
appearance of doing so on paper if the checks and balances on that
control are not sufficiently understood.
Is there even a governance structure (see draft-bollow-ectf-02)?
Contrary to the view expressed to me by one IESG member, there is no
outcome here that is 'unthinkable'. Diplomats will almost invariably
What is unthinkable today may be possible tomorrow.
The Internet has three separate potential control points: The IP
Address registry, the DNS name registry and the various registries for
protocol features. All three are an example of a Tinkerbell ontology:
They exist for no other reason than that people believe in their
existence. ICANN DNS names have relevance because there is a consensus
that they are so, new.net DNS names are irrelevant because there is
consensus that they are so.
Yes.
Rather than attempting to maintain the status quo, we should instead
identify what are the necessary concerns. We need to protect the
openness of the Internet. We do not need to perpetuate the existence
of ICANN, IANA or the RIRs as institutions. Maintaining the
The IETF took money from ICANN for some hors d'oeuvres and nobody objected.
institutions may be a means of protecting the open internet but we
should be prepared to walk away from them if necessary and in
particular we should not defend their monopoly status at all costs.
During the last plenary it was mentioned that the IETF should not be
self-perpetuating.
For some people the open internet is the web. Other people see it as
Google, Facebook and Twitter. Would anyone on this mailing list walk
away from these free services to protect the open internet?
Consider for example the maintenance of IPv6 address space. Why does
this have to be an IANA monopoly? The only necessary requirements for
IPv6 address space is that the same space is not assigned to two
different parties and we do not run out. If the ITU-T wants to also be
in the business of handing out IPv6 address names then give then a /21
or a /16 and tell them to go party. No really, choose your battles.
If the ITU-T wants a /16 it is simply a matter of asking the IETF for it.
In conclusion, there is an issue here but not a cause for the panic
that many seem to suggest. The situation is certainly complex, but not
one that is too complex for mortal understanding. What I am certain of
is that we do not need to rely on the counsels of those who tell us
that the situation is so complex that we need not worry our little
heads about it. In fact I believe the exact opposite: The openness of
Yes.
Regards,
-sm