Well said Olivier - thank you! Internet is an International Network.Period. (maybe and unless we link upwith other planets!? This decentralisation/ decetralization or whatever it may be called - is not and will not be for the benefit of the global community (or will it be?) For once the world has discovered something common for all - what is the problem? Is it because everybody might/will benefit from it? Yes/No (no 3rd choice in this). One wonders why so much noise is made on this issue. It is like one wanting to change the (+, -, / and x) in Arithmetic/ Mathematics. There is a need to have a diplomatic way to approach this issue - not purely technical approach. By the way I hope non-English speakers get a translation of this discussion - I wrote it in English (another thorn in the bush ) as to "why English is the Internet language" yassin
From: ocl@gih.com> To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:46:33 +0100> Subject: Re: [At-Large] (No so) Serious Allegations> > "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:> > > In terms of Internet architecture this creates the opposition> between> > the ICANN (de?)centralized vision and the distributed nature of the> > Internet. Today we have an ongoing discussion at the IETF (BEHAVE)> > where the question is about NAT66 (an IPv6:IPv6 NAT version - the> > Internet Draft is being introduced by very serious IETF leaders, in> > order to try to control what NAT could do under IPv6). The debate> > shows that NAT66 will not only be built and deploy, their features> be> > much more developped than the IETF proposition, but that they will> > support a large diversity of IPv6 Realms - hence a large diversity> of> > DNS roots.> >> > Most of the IETF old members hope this will not go that way.> > I've also been following the discussion on the IETF BEHAVE list with> great interest.> > To tell you the truth, I wasn't quite sure about the initial reasons> for the heated debate between the people for NAT66 and the people> against NAT66. I took 24h to think about it and for a moment, came to> the same conclusions about multiple DNS roots & multiple IPv6 realms.> With NAT66, the concept of network number uniqueness which was a key> proposed feature of IPv6, disappears.> > Then I thought again - and was taken back to the days when the> Internet was not as well integrated as it is today. You know, the days> when you needed to route your email through gateways & the like. Sure,> there were many other networks out there, but you know what I found to> be most amusing is that historically they all merged with the> Internet.> > I am therefore neither "for" or "against" the idea of NAT66. I've seen> several alternative DNS roots rise and fall. If organisations wish to> launch their own Internet, their own root servers, their own> interfacing with the current Internet through IPv6 NAT, sure, go> ahead! Let the market decide what's best.> > Just:> 1. don't ask me to pay for it, whether through my taxes or whatever> 2. don't restrict the freedom I currently have in using today's> Internet> 3. don't impose your alternative network on me> 4. don't take me back to the dark days of telco monopoly> > Warm regards,> > Olivier> > -- > Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D> Global Information Highway Ltd> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html> > > _______________________________________________> At-Large mailing list> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=w...