This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to email@example.com. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.
[I-coordination] A different model
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Dec 13 01:18:30 CET 2013
On 13/12/2013 12:41, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don't know that there is a word for this yet. the only precedent is
>> the telephone system and governments managed that by nationalizing the
>> infrastructures at a very early date and placing them under government
>> regulation. So administrative acts became government acts
>> And every single modem or device had to be certified by the phone company
>> (mostly controlled by governments), I remember the torture of trying to
>> have a Telebit modem installed/working in Istanbul, not even imagine
>> getting X.25 working that was supposed to be a "standard" (well actually it
>> was a set of recommendations.)
>>> That is not a workable model for the Internet since even if the
>> government buys out the pipes, users want to go to Facebook and Google.
>> Well, ITU keeps pushing to manage a chunk of IPv6 address space. I still
>> remember the Beckstrom SNAFU during a no so distant IGF... But everything
>> went back to normal when at the following ICANN meeting we were all praying
>> for the security and stability of the Internet and the cult to the
>> multistakeholder model.
> Well there is their problem, they ask for permission.
> If they just sent a letter to IANA informing them that some block of IPv6
> addresses that is comfortably above the current distribution point is going
> to be allocated, what is IANA going to do to stop them?
Simply state that the space is reserved by the IETF, and kick the problem
over the transom. And the IETF would recall the agreements made between
the IETF and the ITU-T in ~2005. I personally explained why the idea is
technically broken to the Director of ITU-T. Not sure he understood,
> Nobody would want the contested allocations even if the backbone carriers
> refused to route them.
An exercise in futility indeed. We've been playing whack-a-mole
on this one since 2005 to my personal knowledge, and probably longer.
It isn't a governance issue. It's a technical administration issue, very
similar to spectrum allocation or E.164 administration, which is why
ITU remains a little peeved that they aren't in charge of it. But they're
More information about the I-coordination