Pierfrancesco Caci wrote:
err... do you realize there's about 6.4 * 10^9 other people outside of
the USA, don't you?
Caution: I was admonished by the cabal for saying just that.
First, let me say that I think peering regulation is a terrible idea.
No matter how cleverly you plan it, the result will be that fewer
small companies can participate. That's the character of regulation:
compliance creates more barriers to entry than it removes.
That having been said,
:- Lamar == Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this list) to
limit the events:
1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a government run and regulated
backbone);
On 06/11/2008 02:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who owns the DNS root?
The US Government claims to. However, asserting authority over the DNS
root is a different matter to a mere claim to ownership, and if the US
Government were to unilaterally decide on an action which directly acted
Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this list) to
limit the events:
1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a government run and regulated
backbone);
Right. But what do we want this to look like?
Well, since
Lamar Owen wrote:
Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this
list) to limit the events: 1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a
government run and regulated backbone);
Which government?
Right. But what do we want
Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How will that work in, say, China? Or Iran
[snip]
But I'm sure there are loopholes in my rough outline above; it's too
simple to be real regulation. :-)
One World Government at last!
Just one of the many loopholes in my simplistic outline, and the
Lamar Owen wrote:
Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How will that work in, say, China? Or Iran
[snip]
But I'm sure there are loopholes in my rough outline above; it's
too simple to be real regulation. :-)
One World Government at last!
Just one of the many loopholes in my simplistic
Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wote:
Do you see that as more than a minor nuisance?
I see it as a deal breaker.
Yet another reason I vastly prefer no such regulation.
Yet endusers with clout (such as NASA, who was on both sides of this latest
partitioning) may try to get some form of
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:59:09AM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
You're very welcome. My previous career was as a broadcast chief operator.
Knowing 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 73, 74, and 101 was part of that job (and a part I
do not miss). Radio (both amateur and professional) used to be, prior to the
. Rhetorical question...
scott
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs
requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 11:59:09 -0500
Government at last!
bzzzt! wrong answer. :-)
scott
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
CC: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs
requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
Date
speaking about regulation, as a party providing an important piece of
infrastructure to the muggles in the matrix, we would expect some
gratitude from the various highly incompetent governators around the
world, instead of pissing off isps with more regulations, primarily pushed
by the various
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this
list) to limit the events: 1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a
government run and regulated backbone);
Which government?
First, let me
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That having been said, jurisdiction is a red herring. Every
transit-free provider does at least some of its business in the United
States. Economic reality compels them to continue to do so for the
foreseeable future. That's all the hook the Feds need.
Have we yet had a peering war that was genuinely international, i.e. the
partition was between net X in country Y and net Z in country W? Rather than
between X's Y and Z's Y divisions, which wd both be in Y jurisdiction?
- original message -
Subject:Re: Internet partitioning event
Are you saying that if any part of a network touches US soil
it can be regulated by the US govt over the entirety of the
network? For my part, this is not an attempt to change the
subject or divert the argument (red herring). It is a valid
question with operational impact.
That's not
William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this
list) to limit the events: 1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a
government run and regulated backbone);
Which
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 02:46:27PM -0800, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That having been said, jurisdiction is a red herring. Every
transit-free provider does at least some of its business in the United
States. Economic reality compels them to continue to do so for the
To add to Michael's point, I will say that while US Laws cannot apply
to a company globally, it is perfectly reasonable for the US govt to
say If you wish to do business in this country, your operations
within the USA will follow these rules. This is how every other
industry is regulated. Just
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not how companies work. What you see as a single
company operating a single worldwide network, is actually
a web of companies with interlocking directorships and
share structures. In each country they will probably have
3 or 4 corporate entities.
Ok, I
Scott Weeks wrote:
Ok, I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking of one company in a
non-US country with some assets in the US (but most not) and being
held to US regulations network-wide. How would you stop the traffic
that was not following US regulations from hitting the US?
Ask ISPs
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scott Weeks wrote:
Ok, I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking of one company in a
non-US country with some assets in the US (but most not) and being
held to US regulations network-wide. How would you stop the traffic
that
Hi everyone,
The Mailing List Committee would like to remind everyone that postings
of a political nature are not considered operational. From the
acceptable use policy [1]:
6. Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are
prohibited.
Please refrain from follow up posts on
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:46:27 PST, Scott Weeks said:
Are you saying that if any part of a network touches US soil it can be
regulated by the US govt over the entirety of the network? For my part, this
is not an attempt to change the subject or divert the argument (red herring).
It is a valid
25 matches
Mail list logo
