[AusNOG] [PICISOC] [pacnog] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group

Thu Mar 4 06:11:20 EST 2010

Gisa, personal attacks are not necessary either and not for this forum, with
some pacnogers and picisocers having this forum as only means to hear and
exchange ideas, views and intellects.

Thanks

Fred

From: Tai Purcell [mailto:taipurcell at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 8:07 PM
To: picisoc at picisoc.org; gih at apnic.net
Cc: pacnog at pacnog.org; skeeve at eintellego.net; apnic-talk at apnic.net;
pita at connect.com.fj; ausnog at ausnog.net; nznog at list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: RE: [PICISOC] [AusNOG] [pacnog] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6
Group

OK I have read this thread with interest. Geoff, this is not a forum for you
to run down other organisations who have been in place, set up communication
standards and helped different countries address their telco needs, before
you were even borne!

You did not answer Fred's questions. Why should ITU look at the technical
side of the Internet when there is ICANN, IETF etc? ITU and other
organisations are looking the policy, regulation and legislation among other
good work.

So, if you cannot answer Fred's question, then take your issues and spit it
out else where and not on this forum. Why? Has ITU not selected you for a
certain position or a consulting role? Try and understand organisations and
their good work for the world telecommunication before you speak. The ITU is
focussing on the Internet policy amonth other things and may be you should
learn how to spell the workd diplomacy otherwise, remove yourself from both
picisoc and pacnog lists. 

> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:18:53 +1200
> From: franck at avonsys.com
> To: gih at apnic.net
> CC: pacnog at pacnog.org; Skeeve at eintellego.net; apnic-talk at apnic.net;
picisoc at picisoc.org; pita at connect.com.fj; ausnog at ausnog.net;
nznog at list.waikato.ac.nz
> Subject: Re: [PICISOC] [AusNOG] [pacnog] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6
Group
> 
> Geoff, well said but who you are closer to all of this: when is the last
time the ITU-T has made a standard which is relevant for the Internet?
> 
> H323, was converted to SIP and even MPLS is tackled by the IETF... As you
indicate, ITU is a body looking for relevance, which runs so far from its
own inertia. It seems a new body is needed, where people can sit and tackle,
but the Internet has changed so much the way people participate, that I
don't even know if that's the answer.
> 
> To be fair, the IETF standard process is becoming hard, some say harder
than the ISO process. Something to watch and try to fix, but I know some
good folks have already identified the issues.
> 
> Oh, and while we are discussing paradigm shifts, with social media we are
living a social revolution (may be even bigger than the one in the 60s) that
few adults are able to completely understand and therefore are trying to
stop it than to embrace, but that's another story... 
> 
> Franck Martin 
> http://www.avonsys.com/ 
> http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys 
> twitter: FranckMartin Avonsys 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Geoff Huston" <gih at apnic.net>
> To: pita at connect.com.fj
> Cc: "Franck Martin" <franck at avonsys.com>, "Skeeve Stevens"
<Skeeve at eintellego.net>, "AusNOG" <ausnog at ausnog.net>, apnic-talk at apnic.net,
"nznog" <nznog at list.waikato.ac.nz>, pacnog at pacnog.org
> Sent: Sunday, 28 February, 2010 1:42:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] [pacnog] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
> 
> 
> On 27/02/2010, at 6:51 PM, pita at connect.com.fj wrote:
> 
> > Some folks just likeshooting down other organisations and missinmg the
issues
> > 
> > Can the contribution be more on the issues otherwise take it elsewhere
> > 
> > Keep the minds open as there are some real valid and serious issues
here. 
> > 
> > So to start with,you can contribute on the issues raised or why the
study is needed?
> > 
> > One of the commonly supported ideals is having competition. 
> > 
> > Is this an issue if organised well?
> > 
> > How about security.. Can we all live it to system?
> > 
> > I would really like to hear good strong arguments for both sides
> > 
> 
> 
> Hi Fred,
> 
> In response to your request for some contributions to the topics of
competition in address distribution, Paul Wilson and I wrote the following
some years back: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2005-04/compete.html
> 
> I believe that you will find that this article directly addresses the
issues relating to the potential effects of competing address distribution
systems within the same protocol set. I note that nothing has changed in the
intervening period.
> 
> At the time I also wrote a broader look at the motivations of the ITU in
this space, and you can find that at:
http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2004-11/2004-11-isp.htm 
> 
> The ITU evolved over the 20th century to match the needs and desires of
its constituents and as many, if not all, national regimes addressed the
social needs for broad access to a single functional telephone network via
national monopolies , the ITU assumed, in effect, the role of being the
monopolists club. Since many of these monopolies were publically owned and
operated enterprises the role of governments and the role of the monopoly
actors were closely aligned. There were some chinks in this approach,
chiefly relating to the use of inter-provider (all, to call it by its real
name at the time "inter-government") payments for the increasingly lucrative
area of international communications, and the opposition was mainly from the
US, but on the whole the ITU was tolerated given the lack of any viable
alternative. 
> 
> The Internet was not an isolated technological innovation - it rode upon
the back of progressive deregulation of the telecommunications sector in the
late 20th century. The Internet players have been firmly rooted in a
vibrantly competitive and largely deregulated private sector, and the ITU
has been supremely irrelevant to their business models. But the ITU still
has a set of folk who feel that their interests are best articulated by this
august body, even if their individual interests are possibly as simple as
preserving their rather comfortable lifestyle in Geneva while living on
permanent travel allowance! I must admit, however, that I find it ironic
that the latest efforts by the ITU to regain some degree of relevance in
this shifted world order of the largely deregulated competitive
telecommunications environment that we live in today, have the ITU invoking
the mantra of "competition!" From the supreme head of the former monopolist
club that indeed is an ironic, and economically and politically speaking a
naive and inept move on the part of the ITU, in my view.
> 
> So I agree with you Fred in the assertion that these are indeed
significant issues - to quote from the closing para of the second document
I've referenced:
> 
> "It is unlikely that James Watt would've looked at the governor he had
invented for the steam engine and foreseen the fundamental way that the
ensuing industrial revolution would change the lives of every human on the
planet over the ensuing centuries. His was a simple problem of technology.
> 
> At its outset the Internet was also a simple problem of technology. Today
it is no longer just a question of technology, but also a more fundamental
question of entering a process of social change, as we embrace a world of
information, where the economic forces appear to be related to the
capability of acquiring and exploiting information."
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Geoff Huston
> 
> Usual Disclaimers - these are all my views.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PICISOC members discussion mailing list
> PICISOC at picisoc.org
> Unsubscription and other options:
> http://picisoc.org/mailman/listinfo/picisoc_picisoc.org
> PICISOC Web site:
> http://www.picisoc.org/

  _____  

MSN NZ Travel Find a way to cure <http://travel.msn.co.nz/>  that travel bug

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100304/050fab2f/attachment.html>