<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:42 PM, Arjan van der Oest wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>CB3ROB scribbled:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">let the riots commence 2.0....<br></blockquote><br>Oh dear oh dear...<br><br><blockquote type="cite">keep in mind, most telcos and ISPs (the founders and members of the <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">current IANA -> RIRS -> LIRs model resulting in a global internet which<br></blockquote>is <br><blockquote type="cite">hard to censor) do not agree on this ITU proposal...<br></blockquote><br>I wonder who those ITU members are then? Are those all currently<br>non-internet-offering telco's?<br><br></div></blockquote>The voting members of the ITU are national governments. The telcos</div><div>get to speak at some ITU sessions and get to attend most of them,</div><div>but, they don't generally get to vote as I understand it.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">If we allow them to go forward, this WILL result in a "per country" <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">easy-to-filter internet in a few years when ipv6 is the only serious <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">protocol left.<br></blockquote><br>/me hands CB3ROB some tinfoil and mumbles : "believers, start your<br>FOLDING!"<br><br><blockquote type="cite">we only need to point out how easy it was for the DDR to simply route<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">all phonecalls to "the west" through a room where people monitored <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">telephone conversations, and this "country specific prefix" is just<br></blockquote>what <br><blockquote type="cite">the ITU seems to want for the internet.<br></blockquote><br>Not comparing this to the former-DDR or Chinese situation (please refer<br>to my tin-foil remark above) a per-country specific prefix is not<br>necessarily a bad thing and may even have an upside.<br><br></div></blockquote>Care to explain what that could possibly be? (I simply don't see an</div><div>upside to making it easy to censor the internet by national identity).</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">In order to accomplish that they want to create their own address <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">registry, for now "secondary" to the ISP/telco run bottom-down RIR<br></blockquote>system <br><blockquote type="cite">(RIPE,ARIN,APNIC,AFRINIC,APNIC) but ofcourse we can't expect it to<br></blockquote>take <br><blockquote type="cite">long before repressive governments start to force "the internets" "in <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">their country" to use only the ITU registry...<br></blockquote><br>Why?<br><br></div></blockquote>Because such is the nature of repressive governments?</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">now -we- can always move our office to some other country and take our<br></blockquote>tax <br><blockquote type="cite">money to some other resort, not a biggie, but don't come complaining<br></blockquote>to me <br><blockquote type="cite">when germany at some point uses this to build their own chinese bigass<br></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite">golden firewall with flames coming out of its ass to make it faster.<br></blockquote><br>Sven, I think several less-democratic nations have already proven that<br>if they require total control of the internet within the boundaries of<br>their country (sic) they can and will implement this anyhow. They don't<br>require ITU nor the UN for this. They will just demand Cisco and Google<br>to implement it and the corporate chiefs will just answer "How soon?"...<br><br></div></blockquote>In fact, so far, said countries have had only minimal success with this</div><div>approach. Look at the tunneling out of Iran during the recent events</div><div>and the amount of "unauthorized" information which made it out to</div><div>the world via the internet.</div><div><br></div><div>In general, the current internet regards censorship as damage and</div><div>routes around it. Giving repressive regimes the ability to know that</div><div>all the addresses they want to allow to communicate are in a defined</div><div>prefix would make effective censorship much easier and make</div><div>working around that problem much harder.</div><div><br></div><div>In spite of this fact, that is not the primary reason to oppose the ITU</div><div>proposal. Competing Internet Registry structures where one structure</div><div>is not bound by the stratagems of RFC-2050, or, for that matter, any</div><div>form of policy other than what each national IR chooses to implement</div><div>is a recipe for disaster in address policy. Imagine, for example, what</div><div>happens when $NATION decides that spammers are a good source</div><div>of revenue and starts selling them rotating address chunks for</div><div>a fee. Pretty soon, the IPv6 address space could end up looking</div><div>like the island of Nauru.</div><div><br></div><div>(<a href="http://www.lawanddevelopment.org/docs/nauru.pdf">http://www.lawanddevelopment.org/docs/nauru.pdf</a>)</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font><blockquote type="cite">(considering the fact that governments themselves are not capable of <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">running anything but a gray-cheese-with-a-dial telephone network<br></blockquote><br>Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run<br>network...<br><br></div></blockquote>No, ARPANET was a government sponsored network run by researchers.</div><div>The fact that it is a cooperative anarchy rather than a highly structured</div><div>centralized management structure pretty much proves that although the</div><div>government funded it and pointed in a vague development direction,</div><div>they had little to do with the implementation details and even less to</div><div>do with the operational details.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">they need us, we don't need them<br></blockquote><br>If they install legislation that forbids anyone without a license to run<br>a telecommunications network of ANY kind, surely you need them, with or<br>without ITU and/or RIR's.<br><br></div></blockquote>And yet so long as a given country has at least one licensed carrier</div><div>doing some level of international IP based services it becomes almost</div><div>impossible to inflict deeper policy on what use those IP based services</div><div>are put to.</div><div><br></div><div>OTOH, a wide-spread crackdown of national control over prefix</div><div>distribution could make that much worse.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>