This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org. 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

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Fri Dec 13 04:08:58 CET 2013


At 01:30 13/12/2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>A country could order its national carriers to route their hijacked 
>block internally but they would not be in a position to force 
>international recognition.

I am afraid this remark does not stand. It seems based on some 
obsolete confusion among layers and sovereignties, RFCs and political powers.

The internet system was de facto technically tight together by way of 
an international consensus of trust into the IAB's technical 
guidance, documented in the IANA. This was until Aug. 29th 2012. 
OpenStand has transferred the technical reference of the IAB (for the 
Internet to work better), to the economic reading of markets 
satisfaction. International recognition is neither by IETF, nor 
ICANN, anymore, it is by the markets.

However, OpenStand (Lynn St Amour) has not said who was to replace 
the IAB, and provide guidance(read the markets) and be appealed in 
case of disagreement. Hence:

- my RFC 6852 appeal to ISOC that I delay until I feel it may help 
clarifying this, rather than to add to the created confusion I object;
- my suggestion of a WDO (World Digisphere Organisation) treaty that 
ISOC could propose/support. This is the proposition Bob Hinden asked 
me to include in my appeal.

Let get real and consistent. Would a country "hijack" an IPv6 block, 
as you say, it would mean international recognition by way of MSism. 
If some GIX opposed, are you sure anyway that if China, Russia, 
Brazil etc. signed the "hijack" as an ITU treaty the "IPv6 address 
war" would last very long (moreover I suspect the addresses will be 
LISP organized).

As far as we can understand, the consensus heads toward decisions by 
international/multilateral MSism.

ITU is an equal footing member, as any other one, of the ICANN/IANA 
MS globalization process the Montevideo statement strives for. As 
Brazil, Civil Society, France (Hollande meets Dilma Rouseff today, 
etc.), you and me are. Fadi has clearly explained that the Sao Paulo 
meeting will involve the Telcos (ITU) because they belong to the "family".

IETF may chose not to participate to the meeting (as it did for the 
WSIS), I suppose this will not really change anything (the same, if 
ICANN did not attend).

Sao Paulo might very well be the 1NET game over. This is not 
necessarily a good thing. This is why it has to chose between 
opposing and preparing the transition.
jfc





More information about the I-coordination mailing list