This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list.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

Bob Bruen korg at
Fri Dec 13 20:02:18 CET 2013

Hi Lee,

I believe you understand it all correctly. Any nation could decide to do
something evil with their piece of the puzzle that is the Internet. The 
reason that mostly they do not, is the same reason that airports, shipping 
ports, telephone systems etc are usually left alone. If you do not follow 
the agreed upon rules, then you do not get to particiapte with the rest of 
the world.

TCP/IP is the agreed upon protocol set that allows communication between 
any part that is part of the whole. For what it's worth, there are dark 
parts of the Internet which do not care about communicating with the rest 
of the world.

My opinion is that much of the activity discussed here is about creating a 
set of ideas that various entities can agree upon to make the Internet 
more like international air traffic. The technical agreements already 
exist, but other parts (social/political), like freedom of access, do 


On Fri, 13 Dec 2013, Lee Howard wrote:

> 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
>> 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.
> 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?
> Lee
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at

Dr. Robert Bruen
KnujOn Org

More information about the I-coordination mailing list