Re: WCIT outcome?

Hi, At its core, the value of the IETF is technical. We must always make the best technical standards we can possibly make, adhering to the values of rough consensus and running code. Everything else is secondary or nobody (government or otherwise) will want to implement what we develop. It's e

Re: WCIT outcome?

>> And that consent is based on information availability. Manage the >> information, and you manage the consent. > Possibly; the extent to which that management is obvious may, of course, > drive other behavior (cf. самизда́т [Samizdat] and similar efforts). or, in the states, wikileaks. http:/

Re: WCIT outcome?

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Tony Hain wrote: > > Ted Hardie wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Tony Hain wrote: > > Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature > of > > 'the Internet', and they always will be (even the 'reasonable' ones). > > Managing inf

RE: WCIT outcome?

At 16:59 03-01-2013, Tony Hain wrote: other. How long the IETF gets to stay independent of that will depend on how responsive it is to meeting the needs of governments. If short-sighted attempts at political maneuvering are exposed in the IETF, it will lose its independence and finally bring that

RE: WCIT outcome?

> Ted Hardie wrote: > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Tony Hain wrote: > Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature of > 'the Internet', and they always will be (even the 'reasonable' ones). > Managing information flow is how they derive and exercise power > > Aside

Re: WCIT outcome?

On 4 jan 2013, at 01:59, Tony Hain wrote: > Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature of > 'the Internet', and they always will be (even the 'reasonable' ones). Because I do not think generalization is really a reasonable thing to do, and even dangerous when discu

Re: WCIT outcome?

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Tony Hain wrote: > Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature of > 'the Internet', and they always will be (even the 'reasonable' ones). > Managing information flow is how they derive and exercise power > Aside from the whole "consent

RE: WCIT outcome?

> Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > ... > There are some control points in the Internet but they are rather less critical > than many imagine. IPv6 address space allocations, DNS zone management > and AIS numbers are arguably control points. > > If we can eliminate the control point nature of those

RE: WCIT outcome?

England & Wales No: 1996687 -Original Message- From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] Sent: 03 January 2013 13:39 To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: WCIT outcome? --! WARNING ! -- This mes

Re: WCIT outcome?

> From: John Day > > No, there was nothing illegal about it. The reason for acoustic > couplers was that the RJ-11 had been invented yet and it was a pain > to unscrew the box on the wall and re-wire every time you wanted to > connect. In the 1970s, in the US, and for inter-state use, you eit

Re: WCIT outcome?

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > But one of the reasons those auctions were originally proposed was to force > various military interests to stop hogging 95% of the available bandwidth > on the offchance they might have a use for it some day. Putting a price on > the resource forced the Pentagon and

Re: WCIT outcome?

@gmail.com] > Sent: 03 January 2013 12:52 > To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker; IETF Discussion Mailing List > Subject: Re: WCIT outcome? > > --! WARNING ! -- > This message originates from outside our organisati

Re: WCIT outcome?

My only point is that it is not what is used to be. But we can agree to disagree. Happy new year all by the way. ~C. On 1/3/13 11:21 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: > I'd like my mobile phone to work all round the world, as it does. It takes > more than one band, but only a few. And that

Re: WCIT outcome?

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: > Yes, all smart phones support Wi-Fi. In some "unregulated" (not > actually entirely so) frequency bands, and with regulated powers, > over a short range. CSMA/CA can also work over a long range too and can, in a sense, fairly arbitrate packets from different co

RE: WCIT outcome?

Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 -Original Message- From: Carlos M. Martinez [mailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com] Sent: 03 January 2013 12:52 To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker; IETF Discussion Mailing List S

RE: WCIT outcome?

topher (UK) Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: WCIT outcome? --! WARNING ! -- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. Follow the 'Report Susp

Re: WCIT outcome?

My point was not about the need (or lack thereof) of spectrum management, but rather the need (or lack thereof) of an international office for handling spectrum slots. The kind of allocation management you mention is an easier one to tackle. Radio allocation for mobile networks is distance-restric

Re: WCIT outcome?

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: > It's really not that simple. If it were all the world would be doing it for > everything. You should recognize that all the smart phones are working fine (or even better than LTE) with Wifi and that Wifi support prioritized packets.

RE: WCIT outcome?

Wales No: 1996687 -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Masataka Ohta Sent: 03 January 2013 08:40 To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: WCIT outcome? --! WARNING ! -- This message originates from ou

Re: WCIT outcome?

- Original Message - From: "David Morris" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:16 PM > > On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: > > > At one point there was something that said one phone in each home had to be > > directly wired without a plug. I don't know if this was

Re: WCIT outcome?

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: Given the ever increasing number of mobile devices, one could argue that the world has never been more dependent on radio spectrum allocation. If you don't insist on allocating fixed bandwidths, CSMA/CA takes care of most of issues.

Acoustic couplers (was: Re: WCIT outcome?)

On 1/2/2013 1:34 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: >> Now, your point about rewiring the jack may in fact be the reason for >> _post-Carterphone_ acoustic couplers, but it was indeed at one time illegal >> to connect directly (other than AT+T/WE supplied equipment). > > I'm skeptical about t

Re: WCIT outcome?

Hi John, At 05:11 02-01-2013, John Day wrote: Could you expand on this? The question (asked in a previous message) used the word "telecommunication". If one goes by the definition in Y.2001 it may not fit everybody's view of what "telecommunication" should mean. The objectives in Y.2001 ar

Re: WCIT outcome?

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: > At one point there was something that said one phone in each home had to be > directly wired without a plug. I don't know if this was a regulation, a phone > company rule, or just a suggestion, but it also fell by the wayside after > Carter

Re: WCIT outcome?

On 1/2/2013 1:34 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: Now, your point about rewiring the jack may in fact be the reason for _post-Carterphone_ acoustic couplers, but it was indeed at one time illegal to connect directly (other than AT+T/WE supplied equipment). I'm skeptical about this last pa

Re: WCIT outcome?

> > From: John Day > > I remember when a modem came with an 'acoustic coupler' because > > connecting it directly to the phone line was illegal. > > No, there was nothing illegal about it. The reason for acoustic > > couplers was that the RJ-11 had been invented yet and it was

Re: WCIT outcome?

> From: John Day > > No, there was nothing illegal about it. The reason for acoustic > couplers was that the RJ-11 had been invented yet and it was a pain > to unscrew the box on the wall and re-wire every time you wanted to > connect. In the 1970s, in the US, and for inter-state use, you eit

Re: WCIT outcome?

> From: John Day > I remember when a modem came with an 'acoustic coupler' because > connecting it directly to the phone line was illegal. > No, there was nothing illegal about it. The reason for acoustic > couplers was that the RJ-11 had been invented yet and it was a pain to

RE: WCIT outcome?

Carlos M. Martinez > Radio spectrum allocation was a critical task at the time (it still is, > although the world doesn't depend that much on it anymore), Given the ever increasing number of mobile devices, one could argue that the world has never been more dependent on radio spectrum allocation

Re: WCIT outcome?

On Dec 29, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: to be honest I prefer don't comment your emails - but this time I changed mu rules... > > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: > > > As the multistakeholder model and its associated processes, which is far from >

Re: WCIT outcome?

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:46 AM, John Day wrote: > ** > Interesting as always. > > But beyond the illegitimate concerns, there are some important legitimate > ones. In particular a country like France has to be concerned that if it > gets into a trade dispute with the US that the US administration

Re: WCIT outcome?

Interesting as always. At 9:14 AM -0500 1/2/13, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:33 AM, SM <s...@resistor.net> wrote: At 13:08 31-12-2012, John Day wrote: jumped all over. Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to have a consensus. This T

Re: WCIT outcome?

On 02/01/2013 13:44, Carlos M. Martinez wrote: Radio spectrum allocation was a critical task at the time (it still is, although the world doesn't depend that much on it anymore), and one of the task the ITU actually has performed very well, being a positive and constructive player. I don't know

Re: WCIT outcome?

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:33 AM, SM wrote: > At 13:08 31-12-2012, John Day wrote: > >> jumped all over. Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to have a >> consensus. This >> > > There seems to be different definitions of consensus; each body has its > own meaning for that word. > > > ;-) W

Re: WCIT outcome?

Hi! On 12/29/12 4:19 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Jorge Amodio > wrote: > > > ITU was founded previously as the International Telegraph Union > before AG Bell's phone was patented, no doubt the evolution of > tel

Re: WCIT outcome?

At 4:33 AM -0800 1/2/13, SM wrote: At 13:08 31-12-2012, John Day wrote: jumped all over. Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to have a consensus. This There seems to be different definitions of consensus; each body has its own meaning for that word. No, it isn't that. I have been i

Re: WCIT outcome?

At 9:03 AM + 1/2/13, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 01/01/2013 18:32, John Day wrote: ... Not only tariffs. Historically, it was national enforcement of international regulations set by CCITT (now known as ITU-T) that prevented interconnection of leased lines**. But creating a VPN with

Re: WCIT outcome?

At 13:08 31-12-2012, John Day wrote: jumped all over. Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to have a consensus. This There seems to be different definitions of consensus; each body has its own meaning for that word. ;-) Why is that daunting? ;-) I hear that excuse often. If we ha

Re: WCIT outcome?

On 01/01/2013 18:32, John Day wrote: ... >> Not only tariffs. Historically, it was national enforcement of >> international >> regulations set by CCITT (now known as ITU-T) that prevented >> interconnection >> of leased lines**. > > But creating a VPN with in an international carrier that crossed

Re: WCIT outcome?

wrote: Re: WCIT outcome? At 7:29 PM -0500 1/1/13, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote: I'v been hesitating to join in here because this seems distinctly OT to me, but there are some basics

Re: WCIT outcome?

> In most countries, wiretap laws apply to public facilities. laws do not seem to have much relation to government spying. randy

Re: WCIT outcome?

On Jan 1, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Was D.1 to ease wire tapping? By example, I, as a mail server operator > who is not a telecom, am not required by my country's laws to provide an > instrumentation whereby authorized investigators can obtain a list of a > user's correspond

Re: WCIT outcome?

At 7:29 PM -0500 1/1/13, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: I'v been hesitating to join in here because this seems distinctly OT to me, but there are some basics that need to be

Re: WCIT outcome?

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'v been hesitating to join in here because this seems distinctly OT > to me, but there are some basics that need to be understood: > > On 31/12/2012 21:08, John Day wrote: > > At 1:05 PM -0500 12/31/12, Phil

Re: WCIT outcome?

It is of course all history, but allow me some remarks (in line). Thanks Brian, That helps clear up a few things. See below for a couple of questions: At 8:31 AM + 1/1/13, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >I'v been hesitating to join in here because this seems distinctly OT

Re: WCIT outcome?

On 1/1/2013 10:52 AM, John Day wrote: I was thinking about that after I sent my email. I actually don't think there is an argument for ITU holding the IANA function. And just to make sure my own message was clear: I wasn't commenting on the merits of the view, but merely trying to report th

Re: WCIT outcome?

Dave, I was thinking about that after I sent my email. I actually don't think there is an argument for ITU holding the IANA function. The assignment of addresses should be done in such a way as to facilitate routing. This requires agreements among providers, but not governments. Going bac

Re: WCIT outcome?

On 1/1/2013 12:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Also, it is exactly because ITU was in charge of resource allocations such as radio spectrum and top-level POTS dialling codes that it was a very plausible potential home for IANA in 1997-8, before ICANN was created. Some of the ITU people who were

Re: WCIT outcome?

On Tue 01/Jan/2013 09:31:28 +0100 Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > ** CCITT document D.1. The 1988 version includes the restrictions on > use of leased lines: > http://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-D.1-198811-S!!PDF-E&type=items > > The 1991 version is much less restrictive, but it

Re: WCIT outcome?

Thanks Brian, That helps clear up a few things. See below for a couple of questions: At 8:31 AM + 1/1/13, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I'v been hesitating to join in here because this seems distinctly OT to me, but there are some basics that need to be understood: On 31/12/2012 21:08, John Da

Re: WCIT outcome?

I'v been hesitating to join in here because this seems distinctly OT to me, but there are some basics that need to be understood: On 31/12/2012 21:08, John Day wrote: > At 1:05 PM -0500 12/31/12, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM, John Day >> <

Re: WCIT outcome?

At 1:05 PM -0500 12/31/12, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM, John Day <jeanj...@comcast.net> wrote: Phillip, The reason that rule is useful is that just as it is ridiculous for the US representative to the ITU to attempt to convey the

Re: WCIT outcome?

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM, John Day wrote: > ** > Phillip, > > > The reason that rule is useful is that just as it is ridiculous for the US > representative to the ITU to attempt to convey the positions of Comcast and > Google, it is no more practical for one person to represent the positio

Re: WCIT outcome?

Phillip, The reason that rule is useful is that just as it is ridiculous for the US representative to the ITU to attempt to convey the positions of Comcast and Google, it is no more practical for one person to represent the position of Cisco or Microsoft. Then I take it from this comment t

Re: WCIT outcome?

SM wrote: > What people say and what they actually do or mean is often a very > different matter. An individual may have principles (or beliefs). A > stakeholder has interests. There was an individual who mentioned on an > IETF mailing list that he/she disagreed with his/her company's stance

Re: WCIT outcome?

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:25 AM, SM wrote: > At 10:19 29-12-2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >> ICANN is a US corporation and the US government can obviously pass laws >> that prevent ICANN/IANA from releasing address blocks that would reach >> certain countries no matter what Crocker et. al.

Re: WCIT outcome?

At 10:19 29-12-2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: ICANN is a US corporation and the US government can obviously pass laws that prevent ICANN/IANA from releasing address blocks that would reach certain countries no matter what Crocker et. al. say to the contrary. But absent a deployed BGP securi

Re: WCIT outcome?

On 29 dec 2012, at 19:19, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > ITU must change if it is to survive. But it was merely a means to an end. > There is no reason that the ITU 'must' be kept in existence for its own sake. > > Tim Berners-Lee has on numerous W3C AC meetings reminded people about the > X-

Re: WCIT outcome?

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: > > ITU was founded previously as the International Telegraph Union before AG > Bell's phone was patented, no doubt the evolution of telecommunications and > the Internet puts ITU with its current behavior in the path of becoming > obsolete and

Re: WCIT outcome?

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > The stakeholders in the Internet don't even align to countries. My own > employer is relatively small but was founded in the UK, moved its > headquarters to the US and has operations in a dozen more countries and > many times that number of affiliates. The same is eve

Re: WCIT outcome?

ITU was founded previously as the International Telegraph Union before AG Bell's phone was patented, no doubt the evolution of telecommunications and the Internet puts ITU with its current behavior in the path of becoming obsolete and extinct, but you can't discount many positive contributions part