On Dec 29, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
to be honest I prefer don't comment your emails - but this time I changed mu rules...
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As the multistakeholder model and its associated processes, which is far from perfect, continues to evolve, ITU must be part of the evolution. The issue is that as an organization they must accommodate and realize that now they are "part of it" and not "it" anymore.
ITU must change if it is to survive. But it was merely a means to an end. There is no reason that the ITU 'must' be kept in existence for its own sake.
Tim Berners-Lee has on numerous W3C AC meetings reminded people about the X-Windows consortium that did its job and then shut down.
X-Windows was dead from the beginning - we lost more regarding patents and html is still under- or overdeveloped:) But the key point was not attack against ITU - but test the idea to replace Yalta agreements (it means - first test to replace UN)
There is also a big confusion and still lack of a clear consensus on what "Internet governance" means or entitles, and many take it as "governing the Internet," hence governments want a piece of the action, and the constant and many times intended perception that the Internet is controlled by the USG and its development and evolution is US centric, which I believe at IETF we know since long time ago is not true. But many countries, and as you well say those where there was or still is a single telecom operator and controlled by government, see it that way.
Many parts of the world do not understand the difference between a standard and a regulation or law. Which is why they see control points that don't worry us. I do not see a problem with the US control of the IPv6 address supply because I know that it is very very easy to defeat that control. ICANN is a US corporation and the US government can obviously pass laws that prevent ICANN/IANA from releasing address blocks that would reach certain countries no matter what Crocker et. al. say to the contrary. But absent a deployed BGP security infrastructure, that has no effect since the rest of the planet is not going to observe a US embargo.
I can see that and most IETF-ers can see that. But the diplomats representing Russia and China cannot apparently. Which is probably not surprising given the type of education their upper classes (sorry children of party bosses) receive.
Don't think so - that these diplomats were so stupid that they knew nothing about real situation :) Another issue - how clever they were in concrete event?
The same forces that pushed at WCIT will keep doing the same thing on other international fora to insist with their Internet governance agenda, the ITRs will become effective in Jan 2015, two years, which on Internet time is an eternity, and it will be only valid if those countries that signed ratify the treaty. Meanwhile packets keep flowing, faster, bigger and with more destinations, not bad for a packet switching network that was not supposed to work. (During WCIT I was wondering, could you imagine doing the webcast via X.25? )
Two years may be longer than some of the unstable regimes have left. I can't see Syria holding out that long and nor it appears can Russia. The next dominoes in line are the ex-Soviet republics round the Caspian sea where having the opposition boiled alive is still considered an acceptable means of control.
You are absolutely wrong when put Syria in one line... And I think that nobody can garantee absolute stability - be careful with such predictions. History showed us that the most stable leading countries can be easily dropped down...
I agree that it is not clear what the outcome of WCIT12 was, but something that is clear is that ITU needs to evolve, or as Vint characterized them, the "dinosaurs" will become extinct.
I think that first of all - Vint also should estimate himself and Tony ( of course) - who are these dinosaurs? :) I think that what we should be doing is to help the ITU become extinct by eliminating the technical control points that would make ITU oversight of Internet governance necessary.
This does not need to entail a great deal of technical changes but does require that we accept that they do have a valid interest.
dima
|