RE: since my name was mentioned (was Re: The Mother of all Solutions)

@ > If a LARGE GROUP OF NETWORK PROVIDERS (that's us, btw, nanog),
@ > decided TOMORROW that WE will assign address space and route to
@ > it, there is no force in the world that will charge for it, or
@ > be able to change it.
@ That's what we already have. IANA is in charge because the people who own
@ the physical plant -- that's the multinationals, larger nationals, government,
@ military, and other gigantic users -- think IANA is a good solution for the
@ time being. IANA delegates its address assignment authority to registries
@ (RIPE, APNIC, and ARIN/InterNIC) whose operational guidelines are set by and
@ reviewed by open forums made up of the people to whom addresses are allocated,
@ with some oversight/assistance from IETF.


  The "big boys" support the status quo...that's not surprising...
@ If the people who own the physical plant were to somehow jointly decide that
@ some other system would work better for them, then that other system would be
@ in place (or die trying) pretty much instantaneously, with no relevant
@ fighting. (It's worth noting that confusion over the ownership of the
@ physical plant is what makes Karl, Eugene, and Jim try to do what they're
@ trying to do with ".", but it's probably not worth discussing over again.)


  If a whole bunch of average people make a change in unison,
  then no one, including the "big boys", can stop them...

<snip - Root Name Server operational error story>

@ > Let me know if I've left something out.
@ What you've left out is that the model of Internet self governance has been
@ in use since before the U.S. Military thought it had allowed such, and is in
@ use now even though it looks rather autocratic to someone who does not know
@ from whence IANA and RIPE/APNIC/ARIN derive their relevance.


  The status quo is based on years of momentum...
    as well as U.S. Government and DOD support...
  ...again, not surprising...


Alternate Viewpoint...
  The Internet will never be significantly changed by the people in power.
  Only the collective will of the people can result in changes. To make
  changes you have to be open to change. Change for the sake of
  change is not good. Change for the sake of ensuring that governments
  and small autocratic societies do not dominate the mediums IS good.
  Change to allow people of all sexes, sizes, shapes, ages, races, religions,
  sexual preferences, etc. and viewpoints IS good. The U.S. Government's
  blockade of new participants in the Internet will eventually end and
  history will show that thousands of hours were spent with one small group
  supporting the status quo and another large group advocating an open,
  fair and level playing field. The Internet will be used to reinvent itself
  and the few "big boys" will play no significant role other than to provide
  mass for the blockade which will be lifted by the vary government that
  paid to have it installed...that lifting is happening as NANOG sleeps...:wink: