AW: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
Dear all here, i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies. My personal meaning is: As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as possible equal treatment of all internet users. ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users. Not only that two different system will bring up significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth. Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit. There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets... I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and political concepts. Just my two cents... Cheers, Niels. Btw: sorry for my bad english... --- Niels Dettenbach LIR: de.skyway ND1000-RIPE http://www.skyway.net http://www.syndicat.com
I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable". Further, there are passages like this: " that it is in the public interest that IP-based networks and other telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and provide, at a minimum, the level of quality of service provided by traditional networks, consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized international standards, " This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage. Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views of anyone except for me. Adam Waite Niels Dettenbach wrote:
Dear all here,
i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies.
My personal meaning is: As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples.
Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide.
We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as possible equal treatment of all internet users.
ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users.
Not only that two different system will bring up significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth.
Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit.
There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets...
I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and political concepts.
Just my two cents... Cheers,
Niels.
Btw: sorry for my bad english...
--- Niels Dettenbach LIR: de.skyway ND1000-RIPE http://www.skyway.net http://www.syndicat.com
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry makes no sense. It just adds confusion and administrative/juridical problems. As for development in third world countries. I think the current model is better adapted, since It's centered on technology and infrastructure. As well as open standards. Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With the ITU in the game, the balance of power over the cornerstones of the internet, might very well move in behind closed doors. I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create commercial monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair competition, leading to overpriced, low capacity services for the end-users. Also there is no real reason behind the claim? Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what way is an establishment of an new register justified? BR. --Dennis Lundström Adamo Europe S.L On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote:
I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable".
Further, there are passages like this: " that it is in the public interest that IP-based networks and other telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and provide, at a minimum, the level of quality of service provided by traditional networks, consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized international standards, "
This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage.
Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views of anyone except for me.
Adam Waite
Niels Dettenbach wrote:
Dear all here,
i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies.
My personal meaning is: As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as possible equal treatment of all internet users.
ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users.
Not only that two different system will bring up significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth.
Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit. There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets...
I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and political concepts.
Just my two cents... Cheers,
Niels.
Btw: sorry for my bad english...
--- Niels Dettenbach LIR: de.skyway ND1000-RIPE http://www.skyway.net http://www.syndicat.com
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
Me too. What standing has the ITU-T in the IP world? In the OSI model, sureley the ITU-T is purely layer 1? What I don't understand is how the ITU-T is going to get its hands on IPv6 space to hand out to its national telco members. If APNIC/LACNIC/AFRINIC don't allocate space to them, what exactly could the ITU-T do about it? If they pass this proposal, how is it going to be enforced? I also don't understand the rationale of the proposal - which developing country has been told that the IPv6 pool isn't big enough to meet its foreseeable needs? The Internet community has managed the run-out of IPv4, may not be perfect but there is a plan, and if IPv6 space shows any sign of running out, there is no reason to suppose that IPv7 will not be developed (256-bit address space anyone?). Robert Robert Smales Technical Engineer Cable&Wireless Worldwide www.cw.com
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Dennis Lundstrom Sent: 26 February 2010 09:55 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry makes no sense. It just adds confusion and administrative/juridical problems. As for development in third world countries. I think the current model is better adapted, since It's centered on technology and infrastructure. As well as open standards. Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With the ITU in the game, the balance of power over the cornerstones of the internet, might very well move in behind closed doors. I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create commercial monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair competition, leading to overpriced, low capacity services for the end-users.
Also there is no real reason behind the claim? Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what way is an establishment of an new register justified?
BR.
--Dennis Lundström Adamo Europe S.L
On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote:
I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable".
Further, there are passages like this: " that it is in the public interest that IP-based networks and other telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and provide, at a minimum, the level of quality of service provided by traditional networks, consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized international standards, "
This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage.
Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views of anyone except for me.
Adam Waite
Dear all here,
i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view
Niels Dettenbach wrote: the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies.
My personal meaning is: As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally
Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to
We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as
got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. possible equal treatment of all internet users.
ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to
held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users.
Not only that two different system will bring up
significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth.
Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin
There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets...
I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their
countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit. old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and political concepts.
Just my two cents... Cheers,
Niels.
Btw: sorry for my bad english...
--- Niels Dettenbach LIR: de.skyway ND1000-RIPE http://www.skyway.net http://www.syndicat.com
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC
Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/
First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ
Ok, so if we are all in agreement that the ITU should not become a registrar, certainly all of the people I have discussed this with feel the same way. Basically everyone is happy with the way it is and cannot see any sensible need for the proposed kind change suggested. So....... Forgive me for my ignorance, but what do we do next, what happens next. Is there going to be a vote? How much control over OUR internet do we really have ?? Mark Barber Brightstar Ltd. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Smales, Robert Sent: 26 February 2010 10:27 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Me too. What standing has the ITU-T in the IP world? In the OSI model, sureley the ITU-T is purely layer 1? What I don't understand is how the ITU-T is going to get its hands on IPv6 space to hand out to its national telco members. If APNIC/LACNIC/AFRINIC don't allocate space to them, what exactly could the ITU-T do about it? If they pass this proposal, how is it going to be enforced? I also don't understand the rationale of the proposal - which developing country has been told that the IPv6 pool isn't big enough to meet its foreseeable needs? The Internet community has managed the run-out of IPv4, may not be perfect but there is a plan, and if IPv6 space shows any sign of running out, there is no reason to suppose that IPv7 will not be developed (256-bit address space anyone?). Robert Robert Smales Technical Engineer Cable&Wireless Worldwide www.cw.com
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Dennis Lundstrom Sent: 26 February 2010 09:55 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry makes no sense. It just adds confusion and administrative/juridical problems. As for development in third world countries. I think the current model is better adapted, since It's centered on technology and infrastructure. As well as open standards. Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With the ITU in the game, the balance of power over the cornerstones of the internet, might very well move in behind closed doors. I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create commercial monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair competition, leading to overpriced, low capacity services for the end-users.
Also there is no real reason behind the claim? Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what way is an establishment of an new register justified?
BR.
--Dennis Lundström Adamo Europe S.L
On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote:
I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable".
Further, there are passages like this: " that it is in the public interest that IP-based networks and other telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and provide, at a minimum, the level of quality of service provided by traditional networks, consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized international standards, "
This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage.
Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views of anyone except for me.
Adam Waite
Dear all here,
i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view
Niels Dettenbach wrote: the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies.
My personal meaning is: As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally
Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to
We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as
got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. possible equal treatment of all internet users.
ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to
held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users.
Not only that two different system will bring up
significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth.
Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin
There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets...
I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their
countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit. old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and political concepts.
Just my two cents... Cheers,
Niels.
Btw: sorry for my bad english...
--- Niels Dettenbach LIR: de.skyway ND1000-RIPE http://www.skyway.net http://www.syndicat.com
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC
Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/
First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
agreed -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Mark Barber Sent: 26 February 2010 11:16 To: Smales, Robert; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Ok, so if we are all in agreement that the ITU should not become a registrar, certainly all of the people I have discussed this with feel the same way. Basically everyone is happy with the way it is and cannot see any sensible need for the proposed kind change suggested. So....... Forgive me for my ignorance, but what do we do next, what happens next. Is there going to be a vote? How much control over OUR internet do we really have ?? Mark Barber Brightstar Ltd. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Smales, Robert Sent: 26 February 2010 10:27 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Me too. What standing has the ITU-T in the IP world? In the OSI model, sureley the ITU-T is purely layer 1? What I don't understand is how the ITU-T is going to get its hands on IPv6 space to hand out to its national telco members. If APNIC/LACNIC/AFRINIC don't allocate space to them, what exactly could the ITU-T do about it? If they pass this proposal, how is it going to be enforced? I also don't understand the rationale of the proposal - which developing country has been told that the IPv6 pool isn't big enough to meet its foreseeable needs? The Internet community has managed the run-out of IPv4, may not be perfect but there is a plan, and if IPv6 space shows any sign of running out, there is no reason to suppose that IPv7 will not be developed (256-bit address space anyone?). Robert Robert Smales Technical Engineer Cable&Wireless Worldwide www.cw.com
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Dennis Lundstrom Sent: 26 February 2010 09:55 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry makes no sense. It just adds confusion and administrative/juridical problems. As for development in third world countries. I think the current model is better adapted, since It's centered on technology and infrastructure. As well as open standards. Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With the ITU in the game, the balance of power over the cornerstones of the internet, might very well move in behind closed doors. I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create commercial monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair competition, leading to overpriced, low capacity services for the end-users.
Also there is no real reason behind the claim? Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what way is an establishment of an new register justified?
BR.
--Dennis Lundström Adamo Europe S.L
On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote:
I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable".
Further, there are passages like this: " that it is in the public interest that IP-based networks and other telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and provide, at a minimum, the level of quality of service provided by traditional networks, consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized international standards, "
This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage.
Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views of anyone except for me.
Adam Waite
Dear all here,
i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view
Niels Dettenbach wrote: the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies.
My personal meaning is: As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally
Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to
We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as
got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. possible equal treatment of all internet users.
ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to
held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users.
Not only that two different system will bring up
significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth.
Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin
There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets...
I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their
countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit. old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and political concepts.
Just my two cents... Cheers,
Niels.
Btw: sorry for my bad english...
--- Niels Dettenbach LIR: de.skyway ND1000-RIPE http://www.skyway.net http://www.syndicat.com
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC
Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/
First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2710 - Release Date: 02/25/10 19:57:00
Views expressed below are purely personal. Since the ITU is basically the voice of the UN on telecoms, I think these ITU proposals to be created mean that the UN has recognized the fact that they can pry control over ICANN out of the USA's cold dead hands. So now they try it a step lower and try to impose their nation centric model on the RIR's. If there is any way for members to assist RIPE and the NRO with convincing the ITU not to proceed this way I'd like to hear it. I fail to see any merit in the stated terms of reference. -reserving a large IPv6 block. Considering the size of the IPv6 adress space there will be no shortage in the forseeable future. If IPv6 adresses eventually do run out it will impact the entire internet and a new adressing scheme will have to be rolled out by all. Keeping developing nation on IPv6 at that time will not be beneficial to them. Just as staying with IPv4 now won't benefit anyone. So a reservation has no benefit. -'equitable access' to IPv6 resource by countries Nothing is preventing countries to register one of their governmental or regulatory bodies as LIR and have access to IPv6 resources. The current allocation policies already take care of the equitable access part. -ITU to become another Internet Registry The ITU political top down policy development process is not compatible with the current internet policy framework. Also all regions are already covered by RIR's and there is no argument that those are not adeqate for their task. -implementing the CIR [Country Internet Registry] model See equitable access. Countries can already do this and get adress space on (motivated) demand. They can also take part in policy development on equal footing with the rest of the internet community. Regards, Michiel -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] Namens Mark Barber Verzonden: vrijdag 26 februari 2010 12:16 Aan: Smales, Robert; members-discuss@ripe.net Onderwerp: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Ok, so if we are all in agreement that the ITU should not become a registrar, certainly all of the people I have discussed this with feel the same way. Basically everyone is happy with the way it is and cannot see any sensible need for the proposed kind change suggested. So....... Forgive me for my ignorance, but what do we do next, what happens next. Is there going to be a vote? How much control over OUR internet do we really have ?? Mark Barber Brightstar Ltd. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Smales, Robert Sent: 26 February 2010 10:27 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Me too. What standing has the ITU-T in the IP world? In the OSI model, sureley the ITU-T is purely layer 1? What I don't understand is how the ITU-T is going to get its hands on IPv6 space to hand out to its national telco members. If APNIC/LACNIC/AFRINIC don't allocate space to them, what exactly could the ITU-T do about it? If they pass this proposal, how is it going to be enforced? I also don't understand the rationale of the proposal - which developing country has been told that the IPv6 pool isn't big enough to meet its foreseeable needs? The Internet community has managed the run-out of IPv4, may not be perfect but there is a plan, and if IPv6 space shows any sign of running out, there is no reason to suppose that IPv7 will not be developed (256-bit address space anyone?). Robert Robert Smales Technical Engineer Cable&Wireless Worldwide www.cw.com
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Dennis Lundstrom Sent: 26 February 2010 09:55 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry makes no sense. It just adds confusion and administrative/juridical problems. As for development in third world countries. I think the current model is better adapted, since It's centered on technology and infrastructure. As well as open standards. Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With the ITU in the game, the balance of power over the cornerstones of the internet, might very well move in behind closed doors. I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create commercial monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair competition, leading to overpriced, low capacity services for the end-users.
Also there is no real reason behind the claim? Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what way is an establishment of an new register justified?
BR.
--Dennis Lundström Adamo Europe S.L
On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote:
I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable".
Further, there are passages like this: " that it is in the public interest that IP-based networks and other telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and provide, at a minimum, the level of quality of service provided by traditional networks, consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized international standards, "
This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage.
Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views of anyone except for me.
Adam Waite
Dear all here,
i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many
Niels Dettenbach wrote: peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies.
My personal meaning is: As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally
Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to
We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as possible equal treatment of all internet users.
ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users.
Not only that two different system will bring up significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of
got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth.
Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin
There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets...
I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and
countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit. political concepts.
Just my two cents... Cheers,
Niels.
Btw: sorry for my bad english...
--- Niels Dettenbach LIR: de.skyway ND1000-RIPE http://www.skyway.net http://www.syndicat.com
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC
Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/
First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ==================================================================
This is my position too: 1. ITU as top down policies entity not compatible with current bottom-top making policies at IP world; 2. Any country may register own LIR and stay involved to using of IPv6 and other number resources; 3. ITU will become as world Internet registry? There is no needs to another RIR or world Internet Registry. Nick Berezenko, Yamaltelecom OJSC +7(495) 644-34-73 +7(349)22 7-18-24 -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Michiel Ettema Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 4:01 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Views expressed below are purely personal. Since the ITU is basically the voice of the UN on telecoms, I think these ITU proposals to be created mean that the UN has recognized the fact that they can pry control over ICANN out of the USA's cold dead hands. So now they try it a step lower and try to impose their nation centric model on the RIR's. If there is any way for members to assist RIPE and the NRO with convincing the ITU not to proceed this way I'd like to hear it. I fail to see any merit in the stated terms of reference. -reserving a large IPv6 block. Considering the size of the IPv6 adress space there will be no shortage in the forseeable future. If IPv6 adresses eventually do run out it will impact the entire internet and a new adressing scheme will have to be rolled out by all. Keeping developing nation on IPv6 at that time will not be beneficial to them. Just as staying with IPv4 now won't benefit anyone. So a reservation has no benefit. -'equitable access' to IPv6 resource by countries Nothing is preventing countries to register one of their governmental or regulatory bodies as LIR and have access to IPv6 resources. The current allocation policies already take care of the equitable access part. -ITU to become another Internet Registry The ITU political top down policy development process is not compatible with the current internet policy framework. Also all regions are already covered by RIR's and there is no argument that those are not adeqate for their task. -implementing the CIR [Country Internet Registry] model See equitable access. Countries can already do this and get adress space on (motivated) demand. They can also take part in policy development on equal footing with the rest of the internet community. Regards, Michiel -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] Namens Mark Barber Verzonden: vrijdag 26 februari 2010 12:16 Aan: Smales, Robert; members-discuss@ripe.net Onderwerp: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Ok, so if we are all in agreement that the ITU should not become a registrar, certainly all of the people I have discussed this with feel the same way. Basically everyone is happy with the way it is and cannot see any sensible need for the proposed kind change suggested. So....... Forgive me for my ignorance, but what do we do next, what happens next. Is there going to be a vote? How much control over OUR internet do we really have ?? Mark Barber Brightstar Ltd. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Smales, Robert Sent: 26 February 2010 10:27 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Me too. What standing has the ITU-T in the IP world? In the OSI model, sureley the ITU-T is purely layer 1? What I don't understand is how the ITU-T is going to get its hands on IPv6 space to hand out to its national telco members. If APNIC/LACNIC/AFRINIC don't allocate space to them, what exactly could the ITU-T do about it? If they pass this proposal, how is it going to be enforced? I also don't understand the rationale of the proposal - which developing country has been told that the IPv6 pool isn't big enough to meet its foreseeable needs? The Internet community has managed the run-out of IPv4, may not be perfect but there is a plan, and if IPv6 space shows any sign of running out, there is no reason to suppose that IPv7 will not be developed (256-bit address space anyone?). Robert Robert Smales Technical Engineer Cable&Wireless Worldwide www.cw.com
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Dennis Lundstrom Sent: 26 February 2010 09:55 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry makes no sense. It just adds confusion and administrative/juridical problems. As for development in third world countries. I think the current model is better adapted, since It's centered on technology and infrastructure. As well as open standards. Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With the ITU in the game, the balance of power over the cornerstones of the internet, might very well move in behind closed doors. I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create commercial monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair competition, leading to overpriced, low capacity services for the end-users.
Also there is no real reason behind the claim? Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what way is an establishment of an new register justified?
BR.
--Dennis Lundstrцm Adamo Europe S.L
On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote:
I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable".
Further, there are passages like this: " that it is in the public interest that IP-based networks and other telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and provide, at a minimum, the level of quality of service provided by traditional networks, consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized international standards, "
This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage.
Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views of anyone except for me.
Adam Waite
Dear all here,
i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many
Niels Dettenbach wrote: peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies.
My personal meaning is: As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally
Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to
We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as possible equal treatment of all internet users.
ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users.
Not only that two different system will bring up significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of
got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth.
Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin
There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets...
I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and
countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit. political concepts.
Just my two cents... Cheers,
Niels.
Btw: sorry for my bad english...
--- Niels Dettenbach LIR: de.skyway ND1000-RIPE http://www.skyway.net http://www.syndicat.com
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC
Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/
First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ================================================================== ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2708 - Release Date: 02/25/10 22:57:00
Disclaimer : personal views, not necessarily those of my employer etc, yadayada. Nick wrote:
This is my position too: 1. ITU as top down policies entity not compatible with current bottom-top making policies at IP world; 2. Any country may register own LIR and stay involved to using of IPv6 and other number resources; 3. ITU will become as world Internet registry? There is no needs to another RIR or world Internet Registry.
Assuming that ITU is trying to obtain a status similar to that of other RIR's and is not trying to replace ICANN/IANA (it's not exactly clear to me what exactly they are striving for), heaving read and agreeing to all the previous that has being said: <devil's advocate> What would be wrong with allocating the ITU their own /12 (whatever) and let them distribute this among their members. Yes, they will become a worldwide super-RIR, but as long as the other RIR's are not interfered with? As an telco/isp I would have the choice of option: request my IPv6 space from RIPE or from the ITU. As long as they don't interfere with ICANN/IANA or the RIR's, what 'danger' would ITU impose? There is no need for 500 domain registrars and still we have lots of options to choose from. Competition is not a bad thing. </devil's advocate> -- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind Regards, Worldmax Operations B.V. Arjan van der Oest Network Design Engineer T.: +31 (0) 88 001 7912 F.: +31 (0) 88 001 7902 M.: +31 (0) 6 10 62 58 46 E.: arjan.van.der.oest@worldmax.nl W.:www.worldmax.nl W.:www.aerea.nl GPG: https://keyserver.pgp.com/ (Key ID: 07286F78, fingerprint: 2E9F 3AE2 0A8B 7579 75A9 169F 5D9E 5312 0728 6F78) Internet communications are not secure; therefore, the integrity of this e-mail cannot be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail. Use of this e-mail by any person other than the addressee is strictly forbidden. This e-mail is believed to be free of any virus that might adversely affect the addressee's computer system; however, no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. All the preceding disclaimers also apply to any possible attachments to this e-mail.
Am Freitag 26 Februar 2010 14:01:07 schrieb Michiel Ettema:
-reserving a large IPv6 block. Considering the size of the IPv6 adress space there will be no shortage in the forseeable future. If IPv6 adresses eventually do run out it will impact the entire internet and a new adressing scheme will have to be rolled out by all. Keeping developing nation on IPv6 at that time will not be beneficial to them. Just as staying with IPv4 now won't benefit anyone. So a reservation has no benefit. I dind't see a significant problem in a forseeable next running out of address space.
-'equitable access' to IPv6 resource by countries Nothing is preventing countries to register one of their governmental or regulatory bodies as LIR and have access to IPv6 resources. The current allocation policies already take care of the equitable access part. May be, but nothing prevents ISPs to get their own IPs from the current system
But problems will occur if there are very different possible policies available to get address space. I.e. countries may construct laws which will only allow / force one of them (i.e. their own) and it is to assume that there will be no significant international pressure on such governments because they let "participate" their peoples to the IP - but under their "control"... Such ideas was not new and in pratice for many telco networks by "tradition". directly. If a government will / is forcing this it will get international pressure in some form (even if some first countries are trying so).
-ITU to become another Internet Registry The ITU political top down policy development process is not compatible with the current internet policy framework. Also all regions are already covered by RIR's and there is no argument that those are not adeqate for their task. I can't see any proven argument to change the current structures and for the following further management overhead...
If the ITU is right they should be able to explain the improvements their own "new" system will bring us. The idea to let give ITU IP address space comes from peoples (politicans, lobbyists) which are thinking of IP adresses as telephone numbers. bets regards,, Niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach --- Syndicat IT&Internet http://www.syndicat.com T.-Muentzer.-Str. 2, 37308 Heilbad Heiligenstadt - DE --- Kryptoinfo: PGP public key ID 651CA20D Fingerprint: 55E0 4DCD B04C 4A49 1586 88AE 54DC 4465 651C A20D https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Mark Barber wrote:
How much control over OUR internet do we really have ??
Well, we can always just nullroute their bigass-prefix, should they even manage to obtain one, rendering it completely unusable to their little country government pals :P considering that they don't have a -right- to have their packets forwarded over our infrastructure... The internet works because it is in the common interest of participants to make it work, it is not in the common interest of the "community" to harbour organisations that form a threat to this principle, therefore, i would not see why we should assist them in their effort -at all-. Should they piss off the ISPs, it's quite easy to get rid of them after all. All this will lead to eventually is the facilitation of censorship... Bad Idea. "Stik dr maar in" as we say in dutch. He who owns the circus gets to run the show. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG (AS34109) CBSK1-RIPE On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Mark Barber wrote:
Ok, so if we are all in agreement that the ITU should not become a registrar, certainly all of the people I have discussed this with feel the same way.
Basically everyone is happy with the way it is and cannot see any sensible need for the proposed kind change suggested.
So.......
Forgive me for my ignorance, but what do we do next, what happens next. Is there going to be a vote?
How much control over OUR internet do we really have ??
Mark Barber Brightstar Ltd.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Smales, Robert Sent: 26 February 2010 10:27 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
Me too.
What standing has the ITU-T in the IP world? In the OSI model, sureley the ITU-T is purely layer 1?
What I don't understand is how the ITU-T is going to get its hands on IPv6 space to hand out to its national telco members. If APNIC/LACNIC/AFRINIC don't allocate space to them, what exactly could the ITU-T do about it? If they pass this proposal, how is it going to be enforced?
I also don't understand the rationale of the proposal - which developing country has been told that the IPv6 pool isn't big enough to meet its foreseeable needs? The Internet community has managed the run-out of IPv4, may not be perfect but there is a plan, and if IPv6 space shows any sign of running out, there is no reason to suppose that IPv7 will not be developed (256-bit address space anyone?).
Robert
Robert Smales Technical Engineer Cable&Wireless Worldwide www.cw.com
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Dennis Lundstrom Sent: 26 February 2010 09:55 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry makes no sense. It just adds confusion and administrative/juridical problems. As for development in third world countries. I think the current model is better adapted, since It's centered on technology and infrastructure. As well as open standards. Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With the ITU in the game, the balance of power over the cornerstones of the internet, might very well move in behind closed doors. I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create commercial monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair competition, leading to overpriced, low capacity services for the end-users.
Also there is no real reason behind the claim? Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what way is an establishment of an new register justified?
BR.
--Dennis Lundström Adamo Europe S.L
On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote:
I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable".
Further, there are passages like this: " that it is in the public interest that IP-based networks and other telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and provide, at a minimum, the level of quality of service provided by traditional networks, consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized international standards, "
This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage.
Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views of anyone except for me.
Adam Waite
Dear all here,
i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view
Niels Dettenbach wrote: the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies.
My personal meaning is: As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally
Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to
We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as
got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. possible equal treatment of all internet users.
ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to
held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users.
Not only that two different system will bring up
significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth.
Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin
There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets...
I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their
countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit. old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and political concepts.
Just my two cents... Cheers,
Niels.
Btw: sorry for my bad english...
--- Niels Dettenbach LIR: de.skyway ND1000-RIPE http://www.skyway.net http://www.syndicat.com
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC
Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/
First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies.
Cable and Wireless plc Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
I have an idea of how to solve the problem, in a "win-win" way Why don't we just give ITU the TOTAL control and management of the IPv5 address space? All of it! They can do whatever they want with them! Seriously talking, I think that they shouldn't try to change something that works fine for all of us "If it ain't broken don't try to fix it" -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sven Olaf Kamphuis Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 9:03 PM To: Mark Barber Cc: Smales, Robert; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Mark Barber wrote:
How much control over OUR internet do we really have ??
Well, we can always just nullroute their bigass-prefix, should they even manage to obtain one, rendering it completely unusable to their little country government pals :P considering that they don't have a -right- to have their packets forwarded over our infrastructure... The internet works because it is in the common interest of participants to make it work, it is not in the common interest of the "community" to harbour organisations that form a threat to this principle, therefore, i would not see why we should assist them in their effort -at all-. Should they piss off the ISPs, it's quite easy to get rid of them after all. All this will lead to eventually is the facilitation of censorship... Bad Idea. "Stik dr maar in" as we say in dutch. He who owns the circus gets to run the show. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG (AS34109) CBSK1-RIPE On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Mark Barber wrote:
Ok, so if we are all in agreement that the ITU should not become a registrar, certainly all of the people I have discussed this with feel the same way.
Basically everyone is happy with the way it is and cannot see any sensible need for the proposed kind change suggested.
So.......
Forgive me for my ignorance, but what do we do next, what happens next. Is there going to be a vote?
How much control over OUR internet do we really have ??
Mark Barber Brightstar Ltd.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Smales, Robert Sent: 26 February 2010 10:27 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
Me too.
What standing has the ITU-T in the IP world? In the OSI model, sureley the ITU-T is purely layer 1?
What I don't understand is how the ITU-T is going to get its hands on IPv6 space to hand out to its national telco members. If APNIC/LACNIC/AFRINIC don't allocate space to them, what exactly could the ITU-T do about it? If they pass this proposal, how is it going to be enforced?
I also don't understand the rationale of the proposal - which developing country has been told that the IPv6 pool isn't big enough to meet its foreseeable needs? The Internet community has managed the run-out of IPv4, may not be perfect but there is a plan, and if IPv6 space shows any sign of running out, there is no reason to suppose that IPv7 will not be developed (256-bit address space anyone?).
Robert
Robert Smales Technical Engineer Cable&Wireless Worldwide www.cw.com
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Dennis Lundstrom Sent: 26 February 2010 09:55 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry makes no sense. It just adds confusion and administrative/juridical problems. As for development in third world countries. I think the current model is better adapted, since It's centered on technology and infrastructure. As well as open standards. Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With the ITU in the game, the balance of power over the cornerstones of the internet, might very well move in behind closed doors. I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create commercial monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair competition, leading to overpriced, low capacity services for the end-users.
Also there is no real reason behind the claim? Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what way is an establishment of an new register justified?
BR.
--Dennis Lundström Adamo Europe S.L
On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote:
I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable".
Further, there are passages like this: " that it is in the public interest that IP-based networks and other telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and provide, at a minimum, the level of quality of service provided by traditional networks, consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized international standards, "
This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage.
Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views of anyone except for me.
Adam Waite
Dear all here,
i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view
Niels Dettenbach wrote: the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies.
My personal meaning is: As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally
Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to
We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as
got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. possible equal treatment of all internet users.
ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to
held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users.
Not only that two different system will bring up
significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth.
Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin
There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets...
I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their
countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit. old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and political concepts.
Just my two cents... Cheers,
Niels.
Btw: sorry for my bad english...
--- Niels Dettenbach LIR: de.skyway ND1000-RIPE http://www.skyway.net http://www.syndicat.com
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC
Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/
First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies.
Cable and Wireless plc Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************ ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************
Indeed, The telephone network is a country-centric setup where countries set up their own network and therefore claim control, even nowadays companies like vodafone still don't have one global single-tarif telephone network with a single "country" code, but still have individual countrycodes and tarifs within their infrastructure. Question remains if we, the owners of the internet infrastructure, -want- to outsource power over our infrastructure to such a club, which no doubt has got the intention of regulating it -per country- or wether we would rather have the network-as-a-whole governed by OUR representatives directly in the UN (if any change in how the internet is "managed" needs to take place anyway). After all, -we- have the biggest stick. we own the wires and the routers and the switches, most of the content and servers and most of the buildings this infrastructure is in. Countries get an infrastructure to run their economy on, but thusfar, there have been no real attempts by those countries to take control. now this is one mayor step towards handing over our power over the infrastructure to individual country governments instead of managing it ourselves like we always have done, and incase the country where your mailbox happens t be doesn't do what you like you can still fire everyone there and move your mailbox (and tax money) somewhere else ;). Once this ITU thing is in place, they could obtain total control over the distribution of address space... (at least on ipv6 ;) On the other hand, it does make it easier to terminate services to individual countries that don't act in the interest of the isps :P We indeed, prefer to stay with the current setup :P I'd rahter shut the thing down than hand over control to corrupt governments that frequently don't even act in the interest of their own voters (if they even have democracy ;) This "secondary" addressing thing won't be very "secondary" for long i bet you, this is clearly an attempt to take control over OUR network. If they want regulation, fine, we'll have a nice meeting and send some delegates to the UN, so those old-economy countries can discuss what they want and we'll tell them if we're going to implement that or not. The internet is a global network and it should STAY that way. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG (AS34109) CBSK1-RIPE On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Niels Dettenbach wrote:
Dear all here,
i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies.
My personal meaning is: As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples.
Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide.
We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as possible equal treatment of all internet users.
ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users.
Not only that two different system will bring up significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth.
Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit.
There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets...
I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and political concepts.
Just my two cents... Cheers,
Niels.
Btw: sorry for my bad english...
--- Niels Dettenbach LIR: de.skyway ND1000-RIPE http://www.skyway.net http://www.syndicat.com
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.
Hi Surprise !! Internet is a surprise in a world where everything is merchandised The last 30 years last years were particularly marked by this movement (thanks to the notable influence of the /World Trade Organization)/ Yes, Internet is an unbearable surprise. How a "common good" could develop itself while everything around was "regulated" toward private interests ? Behind ITU everybody can see the stake : the control of the tremendous voice market, voice over IP indeed (IPV6, E164, ENUM and so on...) To maintain its status of vital "common good", Internet needs as much neutrality as possible I agree with the previous analysis Claude Combes Directeur Technique & Prospective INTERMEDIASUD Ce courrier électronique et toutes les pièces jointes sont strictement confidentiels et destinés exclusivement au(x) destinataire(s) mentionné(s) ci-dessus. Si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur, ou s'il ne vous est pas destiné, veuillez le signaler immédiatement à l'expéditeur et effacer ce courrier électronique. Sven Olaf Kamphuis a écrit :
Indeed,
The telephone network is a country-centric setup where countries set up their own network and therefore claim control, even nowadays companies like vodafone still don't have one global single-tarif telephone network with a single "country" code, but still have individual countrycodes and tarifs within their infrastructure.
Question remains if we, the owners of the internet infrastructure, -want- to outsource power over our infrastructure to such a club, which no doubt has got the intention of regulating it -per country- or wether we would rather have the network-as-a-whole governed by OUR representatives directly in the UN (if any change in how the internet is "managed" needs to take place anyway).
After all, -we- have the biggest stick. we own the wires and the routers and the switches, most of the content and servers and most of the buildings this infrastructure is in.
Countries get an infrastructure to run their economy on, but thusfar, there have been no real attempts by those countries to take control.
now this is one mayor step towards handing over our power over the infrastructure to individual country governments instead of managing it ourselves like we always have done, and incase the country where your mailbox happens t be doesn't do what you like you can still fire everyone there and move your mailbox (and tax money) somewhere else ;).
Once this ITU thing is in place, they could obtain total control over the distribution of address space... (at least on ipv6 ;)
On the other hand, it does make it easier to terminate services to individual countries that don't act in the interest of the isps :P
We indeed, prefer to stay with the current setup :P
I'd rahter shut the thing down than hand over control to corrupt governments that frequently don't even act in the interest of their own voters (if they even have democracy ;)
This "secondary" addressing thing won't be very "secondary" for long i bet you, this is clearly an attempt to take control over OUR network.
If they want regulation, fine, we'll have a nice meeting and send some delegates to the UN, so those old-economy countries can discuss what they want and we'll tell them if we're going to implement that or not.
The internet is a global network and it should STAY that way.
-- This e-mail message and any attachments are strictly confidential and intended only for the named recipient(s) above. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message.
participants (13)
-
Adam Waite -
Arjan van der Oest -
combes -
Dennis Lundstrom -
Mark Barber -
Michiel Ettema -
Nick V. Berezenko -
Niels Dettenbach -
Niels Dettenbach -
Phil Barton -
Smales, Robert -
Sven Olaf Kamphuis -
Ziv Leyes