Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> I'm interested in the actual policy they will follow.

Exactly. Identifying the need and defining the requirements, while less
interesting, is far more important than the implementation. Implementing a
system based on a series of conclusions (ie - an ideal implementation) will
be disastrous.


                     -rwr




Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard



----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: "Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>
Cc: <ross@tucows.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; <alexander@svensson.de>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later


> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:38:47AM +0000,
>  Roberto Gaetano <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com> wrote
>  a message of 79 lines which said:
>
> > If this is the way to go, it might well be that one or more functions be
> > delegated to the ITU. For instance, the assignment of IP addresses, that
> > seems similar to the management of the frequency spectrum or the
telephone
> > system, and seems to be perfectly adequate for an International Treaty
> > Organization.
>
> And will they do better than, say, the current RIRs? In what way? Will
> they "take", at least, some of the many unused IP addresses from the
> North to give them to the South?
>
> I'm not interested in which bureaucracy will manage the Internet. I'm
> interested in the actual policy they will follow.
>
>
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html