AW: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group

Indeed,

The telephone network is a country-centric setup where countries set up 
their own network and  therefore claim control, even nowadays companies 
like vodafone still don't have one global single-tarif telephone network 
with a single "country" code, but still have individual countrycodes
and tarifs within their infrastructure.

Question remains if we, the owners of the internet infrastructure, -want- 
to outsource power over our infrastructure to such a club, which no doubt 
has got the intention of regulating it -per country- or wether we 
would rather have the network-as-a-whole governed by OUR representatives 
directly in the UN (if any change in how the internet is "managed" needs 
to take place anyway).

After all, -we- have the biggest stick. we own the wires and the 
routers and the switches, most of the content and servers and most of the 
buildings this infrastructure is in.

Countries get an infrastructure to run their economy on, but thusfar, 
there have been no real attempts by those countries to take control.

now this is one mayor step towards handing over our power over the 
infrastructure to individual country governments instead of managing it 
ourselves like we always have done, and incase the country where your 
mailbox happens t be doesn't do what you like you can still fire 
everyone there and move your mailbox (and tax money) somewhere else ;).

Once this ITU thing is in place, they could obtain total control over the 
distribution of address space... (at least on ipv6 ;)

On the other hand, it does make it easier to terminate services to 
individual countries that don't act in the interest of the isps :P

We indeed, prefer to stay with the current setup :P

I'd rahter shut the thing down than hand over control to corrupt 
governments that frequently don't even act in the interest of their own 
voters (if they even have democracy ;)

This "secondary" addressing thing won't be very "secondary" for long i bet 
you, this is clearly an attempt to take control over OUR network.

If they want regulation, fine, we'll have a nice meeting and send some 
delegates to the UN, so those old-economy countries can discuss what they 
want and we'll tell them if we're going to implement that or not.

The internet is a global network and it should STAY that way.

-- 
Sven Olaf Kamphuis,
CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG (AS34109)
CBSK1-RIPE


On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Niels Dettenbach wrote:

> Dear all here,
> 
> i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies.
> 
> My personal meaning is:
> As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. 
> 
> Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. 
> 
> We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as possible equal treatment of all internet users.
> 
> ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users.
> 
> Not only that two different system will bring up significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth.
> 
> Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit. 
> 
> There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets...
> 
> I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and political concepts.
> 
> Just my two cents...
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Niels.
> 
> Btw: sorry for my bad english...
> 
> ---
> Niels Dettenbach
> LIR: de.skyway
> ND1000-RIPE
> http://www.skyway.net
> http://www.syndicat.com
> 
> ----
> If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/
> First click on General and then click on Edit.
> At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
>