Yes, I agree. But we should allign woth small businesses for which the same things are true. And again: I think that in IPv6, due to how it works, we are fighting a lost battle. On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, at 11:35 [=GMT-0400], Harold Feld wrote: > I believe that we should raise the issue of the administration of the > number space within the context of the WGIG. We should highlight those > issues in number allocation that inhibit noncommercial use of the Internet > and should press for examination of these policies with a goal of changing > them to policies that facilitate noncommercial use. > > Similarly, competitive effects of IP address allocation should be > examined. Artificially inflated prices caused by allocation policies that > inhibit the development of competition hurt all users, but noncommercial > users in particular. Artificially inflated prices are essentially a > regressive tax on IP allocations. > > Harold > > At 07:21 PM 9/8/2004, you wrote: > >Not sure what this means. The tendency is to allocate number space to > >large players (big ISPs which then sub-allocate to smaller comapnies > >etc.), with no possibility to have your own small subset of IP space > >as an end user (even if you are an .org with 100 computers). Is this > >what you'd like to have changed? With IPv6 this seems sort of > >impossible (so I am told). I think it is a pity too. > > > >On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, at 16:32 [=GMT-0400], Harold Feld wrote: > > > > > Allow me to suggest an addition: > > > > > > 5. Access to number space in a manner that fosters non-commercial access > > > and is competitively neutral. > > > > > > Harold Feld > > > > > > At 11:38 AM 9/5/2004, Milton Mueller wrote: > > > > >>> "William Drake" <[log in to unmask]> 9/5/2004 12:23:56 AM >>> > > > > >Can we identify five to seven leading issues and recommendations > > > > >that we think are the most pressing with regard to IG? These can > > > > >be either individual issue-areas (e.g. management of identifiers is > > > > >obviously one of them) or cross-cutting meta-level problems. > > > > > > > >Our forthcoming report will clarify many of these issues. > > > >We (the Internet Governance Project) will be able to release > > > >it in a few days. At the moment we are still subject to a > > > >vetting process. Unfortunately, some of the actors are playing > > > >games, either strategically refusing to comment or commenting > > > >privately but telling us that they are officially "not commenting" > > > >(but still giving us some valuable insight into what they think). > > > > > > > >Nevertheless, I can identify several areas that I think will > > > >prove to be strategic: > > > > > > > >1. Relationship of Intellectual Property Protection to > > > >Free Expression and Privacy. > > > >I believe that certain international organizations and > > > >perhaps some business interests will attempt to claim > > > >that IPR is off the table, and that it has nothing to do > > > >with Internet governance. Nothing could be further > > > >from the truth. The Internet has forced a complete > > > >revision of global copyright and trademark agreements > > > >In a variety of venues, including > > > >WIPO and ICANN, we see IPR protection issues > > > >coming into direct contact with free expression and > > > >privacy norms and even some scientific inquiry norms. > > > >These issues should not be worked out exclusively > > > >in arenas such as WIPO, which are historically mandated > > > >to serve IPR interests and see IP owners as their > > > >constituency. > > > > > > > >2. ICANN's status as a non-state actor. > > > >This is a tricky one. ICANN is under attack on three fronts, > > > >1) its basis in US Govt/law 2) its non-governmental nature > > > >3) the degree to which it does "policy" as opposed to > > > >"technical management" (which may be just an extension of > > > >issue 2). There is no doubt that specific governments intend > > > >to make an issue of this, and there is still the possibility that > > > >it will overwhelm everything else. Imho, we need to defend > > > >the multi-stakeholder, non-state governance of the regime > > > >against the possibility that it will become more governmental > > > >and regulatory, while recognizing (critically) that ICANN *does* > > > >do policy and supporting efforts to find a model that > > > >does not rely on US govt contracting. There are some even > > > >deeper issues regarding the use of contracting as a global > > > >governance mechanism, too much to go into here. > > > > > > > >3. Relationship between security/surveillance on the > > > >Internet and civil liberties. > > > >Here again, the narrow, issue-specific regimes focused > > > >on attacking terrorism/crime tend to override other legitimate > > > >concerns. We could promote a broadened dialogue > > > >that forces Internet surveillance and security measures to be > > > >respectful of human rights in a globally uniform way. > > > > > > > >4. Right to internetwork globally > > > >The most fundamental issue is the hardest to convey. > > > >Territorial governments must formally recognize and > > > >explicitly accept the non-territorial nature of IP networking > > > >and the Internet's architecture. No serious agreements about > > > >Internet governance in any given area can be made until that > > > >issue is dealt with. Either the potential of global networking > > > >is accepted as a factual starting point, or governance > > > >gravitates toward chopping it up into territorially-controlled > > > >architectures and resource allocation procedures (thus > > > >destroying much of the value of the Internet). It may be > > > >too much to ask territorial governments to accept the > > > >reality and salience of nonterritorial interconnection, but > > > >that is really the choice they are faced with. > > > > > > > >--MM > > > >