[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ICANN-EU] ICANN Q&A Forum
Giorgio,
IMHO we talk about the most important issue. The point is not
technical, nor legal, nor privacy, etc. The point is how to proceed.
I explain. The IP addressing plan (IPv4, v6,v8,v16, ...) all have in
common to involve different technical areas: routing, identification
of the called/calling party, tracing, privacy, encryption, authentification,
political/police/military control, inter-medium convergence (telephone,
smart housing and applicances, alarms, local radio and tv etc..),
economics, law, international relations, etc.. ect... concerning very
large indusdtries, governments, civil rights movements, day to day
life of billions of people, etc...
This means that either a solution is found as for TLDs by some solitary
group of technicians with a limited scope of the concerned interests and
we will face in a few years a bigger problem than with DNs and TLDs today,
or we call for an international, interindustry, interconcerns IP conference,
explaining to everyone in clear terms and with a real vision for the
centuries to come (we will not change the world numbering plan
every year) what we are about. We will call for postion papers and try
to sort out the issue. And if there are mistakes done at least everyone
will know why - what will help their common correction.
Making plain the problem and calling for such a conference is the role
of the ICANN. If they do not do it the cost for the world in terms of
patches will be tremendous. This is why I feel that by the most
important SO by far is the ASO. This is why too I am pretty concerned
when mild conservative (in term of vision) candidates as Alf or
others say they will not respond or give evasive answers. We do
not want technical responses at this stage, but a strong commitment
to take any ncessary action for this question to be properly addressed.
Certainly agressiveness is of no use, but the problems I feel
ahead will translate in far more than agressiveness: and the
people who will have to manage them for the world have to be able
to stand far more than some impertinent remarks from Jeff Williams!
Or to have very strong shoulders the day the world will discover
they failed at sorting out an acceptable compromise/consensus
about what is reasonably going to be used as universal IDs
for people, machines, credit cards, telephone, etc.. alike.
Also, I am quite concerned - and this is somethong for
technicians to let us know first - by the ARIN recent press release
about IP numbers being confused with canonicals in a same
vision. Is that technically a problem? Is that not creating a free
sub-addressing? Is that not opening uncontrolled new fields for
good and bad?
Jefsey
10/09/00, you wrote:
>Jeff Williams wrote:
> > Alf and all,
> >
> > Translation. Alf doesn't know what Jim is asking as he does not
> > have a clue from a technical standpoint. I wonder how others
> > will judge his worthiness as a candidate given this now known
> > fact....
> >
>
>I'm not here to defend Alf Hansen but if you talk about the supposed 'non-
>answering' to question (1) of Jim Fleming I'm not sure this is a real
>concern.
>Or better, it is a concern that also applies to IPv4 but no one raised
>this fact
>to such a level of concern.
>The use of hardware ID (MAC address) is a technical need to reach the end-
>point and it is currently used in DHCP, ARP/RARP and any other protocols
>(in IPv4 too) who need to identify and separate any single corresponding
>interface. The privacy issue _may_ be a concern but it is limited to more
>limited domain of end-points (the LAN segment usually) because it is usually
>an additional burden to reflect the true hardware ID in each routing device.
>That is, the true hardware ID will not usually survive two hops and may be
>also fake in itself if the end point is a kind of 'dialup' access.
>Anyway, I see difficulties in reaching a unique end-point without
>resorting to
>an identifier which 'uniquely' allows to distinguish among many others.
>Whatever name you give to such identifier it still will be unique and will
>not
>allow for so called 'privacy'.
>We may discuss many alternative ways to solve such technical problem
>here but I think it is almost not a so appropriate place if we want this
>issue
>solved. Isn't it ?
>
>Best regards
>Giorgio Griffini
>
> > Alf Hansen wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I choose not to answer questions like this because I think they are not
> > > particularly useful for this forum. The questions may be important and
> > > interesting to discuss, but not in this context.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > --
> > > Alf Hansen Mail address:
> > > UNINETT FAS A/S
> > > aha@uninett.no N-7465 Trondheim, Norway
> > > Home page: Phone: +47 73 55 79 00
> > > http://domen.uninett.no/~alf/ Fax: +47 73 55 79 01
> > >
> > > JIM FLEMING wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Alf,
> > > >
> > > > Based on material posted on your various web sites
> > > > and your answers here...You seem to be very qualified for the ICANN
> Board.
> > > > I get worried when I see people with a clue and future being wasted on
> > > > ICANN.
> > > >
> > > > BTW....I do have other questions such as...
> > > >
> > > > 1. Do you support the IPv6 method of placing a person's non-routable
> > > > hardware ID (i.e. MAC address) in the right-most 64 bits of the 128 bit
> > > > field
> > > > as opposed to the IPv8 approach where a routable address is placed in
> > > > the right-most 64 bits avoiding the privacy violation issues and making
> > > > better
> > > > use of those bits as routable information.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Do you support the censorship of global forums such as the IETF,
> > > > by people from Norway and prominent router vendors ?
> > > >
> > > > 3. Do you support the threats of violence against people and their
> families
> > > > endorsed by leaders of the IETF and other members of the IANA/ICANN
> cartel ?
> > > >
> > > > Jim Fleming
> > > > http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
> > > > http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
> > > > http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
> > > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> > > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Alf Hansen <aha@uninett.no>
> > > > To: JIM FLEMING <jfleming@anet.com>
> > > > Cc: icann-europe <icann-europe@fitug.de>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 4:36 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] ICANN Q&A Forum
> > > >
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >