Re: [ICANN-EU] ICANN Q&A Forum

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jefsey and all,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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 agree that how to proceed is certainly a strong point that needs
to be addressed.  However that  is getting a bit far afield of this thread
and the lack of a willingness from Alf, and support of same by Giorgio
in my response to Alf's lack of "Clue" in his evasive answer/non-answer
to Jim's question...

>
>
> 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...

  True enough...

>
>
> 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.

  Also I agree here as well with you Jefsey.

> 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.

  Also agreed here.  Hence the need for future elected "Directors" to be
much more technically astute that Alf seems to be or is willing to elaborate
upon.

> This is why I feel that by the most
> important SO by far is the ASO.

  The ASO is indeed an important SO.  But no more so than any of the
other SO's...

> 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.

 Just saying or committing to this question be "Properly Addressed" if
not close to being good enough, Jefsey.  Yes indeed, some technical
delineation must be expressed in a basic terms as possible in answering these
sorts of question...  Vague commitments, and very inadequate....

>
>
> 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!

  Impertinent remarks?  Pray tell what Impertinent remarks that I have made
are you referring to, Jefsey.... Or possibly are you grandstanding here at my
expense???

>
> 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.

  There will likely not be any one solution or policy that applies
on a very narrow scope.  But likely a number of different solutions
that may or hopefully will be compatible or interfacable....

>
>
> 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?

  Good questions here Jefsey.  And ones that are likely to defy one
single excepted answer...

>
> 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
> > >
> > >

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