This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit

[I-coordination] A different model

Lee Howard Lee at
Fri Dec 13 19:24:30 CET 2013

On 12/12/13 10:08 PM, "JFC Morfin" <jefsey at> wrote:

>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
>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.

That's different than my understanding of the Internet.
As I understand the Internet, it is the (largest set of) networks which
interconnect using the Internet Protocol. Each network is independently
managed; each network operator makes decisions for that network only. The
success of a protocol is in whether it is adopted; generally, adoption
supports interoperability, which is the goal of the interconnected
networks ("Internet").

Related: each network operator decides what routes to carry, and how to
decide what routes they will carry.  I don't see how (or why) the
government of one country can affect the routing tables of network
operators in other countries.

>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).

I'm not sure the IETF has the ability to chose anything, especially
whether to attend a meeting. Maybe I misunderstand the organization of the

>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.

Maybe I lost the context. . . which transition are we talking about now?


More information about the I-coordination mailing list