http://www.circleid.com/article/1045_0_1_0_C/
That's a must read article, I'd say.
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
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.
Followup article by Paul Wilson -
http://www.circleid.com/article.php?id=1049_0_1_0_C/
The Geography of Internet Addressing
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
:
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
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.
: > 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
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
Poke around http://www.nro.net for a detailed correspondence +
submissions on both sides between the RIRs and ITU-T
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.
This is no longer true (for several years). Corporations ("Sector
members") can now join (ITU is the only UN organization which does
that). See
HTSH Message
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
An ITU publication says the majority of ITU members, including member
states and sector members, are now vendors.
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 (Noncommercial Stakeholder Group | Generic Names Supporting Organization) and the At Large Advisory Committee (http://alac.icann.org/) would disagree with that perspective. 
Doug
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.
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.
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