Mailing List Archive

This has been going around for at least two years, makes for some
great scary, click-bait headlines ("they propose an internet kill
switch! For China!", and so forth.)

Besides the obvious question, "by what authority will they move this
forward?" many of us looked at the proposals and they're, in a word,
idiocy.

https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/2017-2020/13/Documents/Internet_2030%20.pdf

(it's only 25 pages and you probably can skip to section 6, maybe look
at section 5, the rest is mostly "what a network is" padding.)

I don't mean I don't like it or just want to criticize it, I mean
rambling, sophomoric idiocy.

But you have to give some credit to their coming up with:

"Holographic Avatar Centric Communications"

as a core idea.

I'd say, like we said with ISO/OSI, etc etc etc: Implement a test bed
and we'll have a look!

On August 11, 2022 at 13:59 news@nanog.org (Nanog News) wrote:
> Proposals at ITU-T for Internet Evolution Raise Serious Concerns; According to
> ISOC
> Huawei, Chinese Carriers, and China want to Redesign a Prominent Part of the
> Internet via a set of “New IP” Proposals
>
> Any new initiative has pros and cons, but according to ISOC (Internet Society),
> the “New IP” proposals are threatening and should be discussed further.
>
> We caught up with Hosein Badran to give us the good, bad, and ugly of the “New
> IP” proposals. Badran is a senior director for ISOC and leads the technology,
> policy, and advocacy initiatives in Internet access, infrastructure, and trust
> domains.
>
> READ NOW
>
>  

--
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 18:33:20 -0400
bzs@theworld.com wrote:

> (it's only 25 pages and you probably can skip to section 6, maybe look
> at section 5, the rest is mostly "what a network is" padding.)

On that note...

I found this the following to a reasonably pragmatic and thoughtful,
albeit US-centric, compilation of policy thinking that is not from the
usual communications world:

<https://www.cfr.org/report/confronting-reality-in-cyberspace>

I reached a couple weeks ago with my PC hat on to see if someone
representing that thinking would be interested in giving a presentation
at a future NANOG. The contacts expressed at least a willingness to
find someone.

If anyone thinks it particularly worthwhile or not for me to press a bit
more, shoot me an email off line with your thoughts.

John

It's short and worth a read though most anyone here can skip down
about 3/4 to the paragraph beginning with "First, Washington should
consolidate..." unless you really need an explanation of why DDoS is a
problem (not a complaint, their target audience might benefit.)

It's CFR, the "Council on Foreign Relations", that venerable
institution which is chock-a-block full of politicians etc many of
whose names you probably know (like former PMs, CEOs of firms like
Blackrock and the Carlyle Group), Angelina Jolie, Fareed Zakaria, etc.

They also publish "Foreign Affairs" which I subscribe to and is
worthwhile, only $40/year, six issues. You can probably pick an issue
up at a better magazine stand (e.g., one inside a bookstore like
Barnes & Noble.)

They provoke a lot of paranoia among the paranoid who are sure they're
the star chamber for George Soros or whatever the want to plug in, the
seat of the Illuminati (TM). I doubt it.

AS TO THE LINKED ARTICLE...

I always have this problem with such articles where my brain plugs in
"sidewalks" for "internet" like "thousands of people have been
murdered on sidewalks!", "criminals often use sidewalks to commit
nefarious financial crimes!", "when are we going to finally take the
problems of sidewalks seriously?!"

There's also a hard to miss "when will Washington do something!?" as
if it's entirely in the hands of the US tho admittedly the US may have
some influence. But such is CFR.

I could go on, I often do...

On August 11, 2022 at 18:09 jtk@dataplane.org (John Kristoff) wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 18:33:20 -0400
> bzs@theworld.com wrote:
>
> > (it's only 25 pages and you probably can skip to section 6, maybe look
> > at section 5, the rest is mostly "what a network is" padding.)
>
> On that note...
>
> I found this the following to a reasonably pragmatic and thoughtful,
> albeit US-centric, compilation of policy thinking that is not from the
> usual communications world:
>
> <https://www.cfr.org/report/confronting-reality-in-cyberspace>
>
> I reached a couple weeks ago with my PC hat on to see if someone
> representing that thinking would be interested in giving a presentation
> at a future NANOG. The contacts expressed at least a willingness to
> find someone.
>
> If anyone thinks it particularly worthwhile or not for me to press a bit
> more, shoot me an email off line with your thoughts.
>
> John

--
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*