| ||At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN||
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Keith Teare's Iconoclastic Take on the SiteFinder Report
Log in/Create an Account
| 21 comments
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
Crocker's View of .NET Architecture is Very Dated|
Crocker goes all the way back to RFC-1. Back in
those days, an RFC could be a one page memo
circulated to the insiders for comments. The .NET has changed, many of the good old boys have
NOT evolved. They are stuck in time.
As one example, Crocker goes thru the myth that
the telephone system is different from the
Internet. Telephones at the edges have evolved,
they have become smarter. Small PBXs have also
evolved. Digital switches at the core, have
become much more compact, than old relay racks.
Crocker claims that ICANN supports innovation
and claims that it took "years" for changes in
the telco world. How many "years" has it taken
for ICANN to approve a simple, 5-minute, TLD
addition in a root server? [which sits at the
edge by-the-way, NOT in the core, where Crocker
wants to claim it is located].
From the ICANN meeting, Crocker says:
"you touch on two very important things that are a bit different from each other. one is this lightning rod of the word "innovation." we are, as much as anybody, very strongly in favor of innovation. we are also in favor of stability and enabling others to innovate. these things are too broad and general as terms to be taken in the absolute and without context. the internet is built very strongly on the notion of putting as little as possible into the core. quite the opposite, say, of the classic telephone system, where in order to make a change and bring out a new service, you had to make a rather massive change in the telephone switches that in the u.s., AT&T used to have the monopoly, and it took years and years and years before any change could be put in."
If Crocker followed his own notion of putting
"as little as possible into the core", then he
would see that the Internet has evolved in
three major phases, but did not start in that
manner. In the first phases, there were large
centralized nodes (mostly at selected academic
and government locations). In the second phase,
a rag-tag group of "ISPs" grew out of the mostly
disconnected BBS-operator crowd. They helped to
de-centralize the original Internet. In the
third phase, which is just emerging, we finally
see the less-is-more-in-the-core approach
because the large centralized telcos are able
to create huge efficient clouds which are viewed
as transparent transports for packets, as
opposed to a collection of hop-by-hop nodes,
which Crocker no doubt assumes is the only way
the Internet can be viewed.
In this third phase, a large carrier has no real
need to expose any of the details of the transport.
Packets go in one side and out the other. A
radical approach would be to not even decrement
the TTL field as they cross that cloud, let the
edges sort out if a packet disappears because it
lives too long moving around nodes at the edges.
With this evolution (not really revolution) the
large carrier cloud looks similar to a frame-relay
cloud. Non-carrier components are added at the
edges. ICANN is NOT a carrier, and NOT a
carrier-regulator. ICANN is at the edge, just
like everyone else.
In this third phase, the core Internet transport
starts to look a lot like a large, virtual,
telco switch. It is capital-intensive equipment
deployed to serve many users at the edges, who
help pay their share, for the central transport,
in very small amounts. Central beuracracies, like
ICANN, attempt to limit the innovation, the
people, and the companies [at the edges] can add.
ICANN does not follow the "Internet Model" that
their experts claim to follow.
As with everything-ICANN, the rules are always
for the peasants and the peons, for the outsiders.
The rules do not apply to the insiders. They
place themselves in the core. They of course
always set up their toll booths in the core to
collect their fees. They also secretly cozy up
to governments and law enforcement while telling
everyone they eschew government involvement in
their closed little society. Note Crocker's
comments about "Homeland Security" providing
"there's funding coming from the u.s. department of homeland security and we're in discussions with other governments. russ mundy and i and folks at national institutes of science and technology are heavily involved on the u.s. side along with a host of other players, suzanne wolfe and others are involved. in europe, there's very active and longstanding leadership in sweden and in amsterdam and other places. and a series of steering groups being formed."
The U.S. Government is easily duped by these
groups that wheel around academics and policy
wonks and never question whether their skills
and knowledge are up-to-date. Fortunately, the
open and free marketplace with MORE educated
people than those that rally at ICANN fests
is able to move forward without U.S. Government
support and funding. The weak like Towmey and
Cerf, have relied on governments all of their
lives to back their regimes. It should not be
a surprise that the weak and largely useless
ccTLDs would now be their focal point for
[ Reply to This | Parent
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com