This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to firstname.lastname@example.org. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.
[I-coordination] I-coordination Digest, Vol 3, Issue 70
jmamodio at gmail.com
Thu Dec 12 11:59:02 CET 2013
comments in-line ...
It is necessary to read * manuals, of course. But you do not find any
> exact definition for the term "Internet". You can find a mixture of
> TCP/IP, network of networks, interconnected networks, other
> explanations -without mentioning the DNS. But in real life there are
> few separate components of the Internet - telecommunications, DNS,
> including numbering, and content.
Why is it necessary an "exact" definition ? There are plenty of publications
and information resources available on-line that explain at all levels what
is Internet and where it came from. DNS and many other systems and
resources are integral part of the Internet not separate components.
IP addresses by itself without routing are useless for example.
> ICANN is responsible for DNS - you can take a look on any ICANN
> meeting agenda - most of topics are DNS related, on Durban conference
> 80% of topics were linked with the DNS.
While the agenda at ICANN has been dominated by the new gTLD program
over the past 10+ years, ICANN role and mission include other things and
actually is not ICANN reponsible for the DNS, as DNS is a distributed
system the responsibility is also distributed and ICANN principal role is
of coordination. On the operational side ICANN is also one of the root
servers operators and the current contractor for the IANA function.
Telecommunications, including transport layers - there are few main
> players - IETF, ITU, IEEE, and few smaller players. Here you can find
> surveillance the problems
Don't understand what to you mean, there are many players at all levels.
> Content - this part is not technical, it is our life. Here you can
> also find few parts - "user generated content" and telecommunications
> inside one computer (Google, Facebook, etc).
Again I don't understand what do you mean about "telecommunications
inside one computer"
> Of course, it is possible to find better separation of components, but
> in some cases one can ask you - why you want to give such definition?
> If you have a definition, you will be able to regulate. And may be on
> this stage it is not necessary to regulate?
The OSI Reference Model has been a good reference to separate and
describe the layers. and as we have protocols and definitions how
communication among layers and between layers must take place to
guarantee interoperability, some of the layers may require more or
less regulation. Think for example about the radio frequency spectrum.
For sure you can't just plainly say "regulate the Internet" or "govern the
Internet" and perhaps that is one of the main issues around the "Internet
Governance" theme and why while there is an accepted *working*
definition that came out of WSIS, the issue is much more complex and
goes way beyond the definition, and its application may have a
different interpretation for different groups and applied to different
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the I-coordination