[LAC-TF] Ipv6, dea, fbi...

[c.a.]

Dear Arturo,

Gracias por las ponderaciones. Pero este es un tema político de la gobernanza de Internet, que resumidamente es: hasta donde pueden las LEAs ("law enforcement agencies") ir en sus restricciones a la operación y desarrollo de la red sin violar principios como la neutralidad, la no violacion de datos privados etc etc?

Como la entidade de gobernanza internacional de la infra lógica es Icann, me pareció muy apropiado dirigir a Icann (y no a sus estructuras afiliadas o asociadas) la pregunta sobre que piensan hacer.

[] fraterno

--c.a.

Sent from a tablet

On 27/06/2012, at 13:41, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
>    Correct me if I am wrong but I think that the difference between name-policies and number-policies in ICANN is that the latter are not discussed directly in ICANN, They are discussed in the corresponding RIRs in a bottom up process and treated as regional policies. The exception is Global Policies that are reviewed and ratified by the ASO and the ICANN board .
> 
>    So, I imagine that is why you got that answer.
> 
>    May be a better answer should have been: "This is a number policy matter, I suggest you to go and talk with the ASO to discuss (perhaps to follow a global policy) it and work with your RIR in producing new policies to deal with this particular whois issue".
> 
>    My 20 cents.
> 
> Regards,
> as
> 
> On 27 Jun 2012, at 07:20, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, resending due to mispelling of the name. Is Thomas Narten, not Tom Anders. My apologies.
>> 
>> --c.a.
>> 
>> Dear people,
>> 
>> This afternoon here at ICANN 44 meeting in Prague, we had a meeting of the ICANN board with the stakeholder group in which I participate (NCSG). I had the opportunity to ask the board what they thought ICANN should do about the FBI & DEA meddling in IPv6 deployment, as they (ICANN) are the planet's governance body for names, *numbers* and protocols.
>> 
>> ICANN's Tom Anders immediately replied ICANN has nothing to do with it. I was surprised, not only by Tom's statement, but also by the absolute silence of the board on this issue.
>> 
>> Just to let you know.
>> 
>> fraternal regards
>> 
>> --c.a.
>> 
>> On 06/24/2012 09:47 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>> On 06/18/2012 03:07 PM, Jorge Villa wrote:
>>>> Sin embargo, el sabado aparece publicado este artuculo titulado "FBI,
>>>> DEA warn IPv6 could shield criminals from police"
>>>> (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/?part=rss&tag=feed&subj),
>>>> donde se anuncia (que por medio de leyes en USA y Canada) se intentara
>>>> clarificar los esquemas de direcciones para obtener "trazabilidad" en la
>>>> comunicacion.
>>> 
>>> Por lo que entendi del articulo (mirandolo muy por arriba, y rápido), el
>>> problema tiene que ver con como se espera que whois se use con IPv6, mas
>>> que con algo intrinseco de IPv6.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Esto significa que a corto/mediano plazo seran removidas
>>>> las extensiones de privacidad de IPv6 o algun otro mecanismo (como el
>>>> que emplea Microsoft)?
>>> 
>>> No, en absoluto.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> El debate se ira a mover hacia el despliegue masivo de IPSEC?
>>> 
>>> Menos que menos! :-)
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Este anuncio es curioso, porque tanto el FBI como DEA han tenido que
>>>> estar involucradas en el despliegue de IPv6, como parte de las politicas
>>>> que al respecto ha trazado el gobierno norteamericano;
>>> 
>>> A veces las politicas son papelerio que no necesariamente se refleja en,
>>> por ejemplo, una despliegue racional de una tecnología.
>>> 
>>> Saludos,
>> _______________________________________________
>> LACTF mailing list
>> lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org
>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lactf
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LACTF mailing list
>> lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org
>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lactf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LACTF mailing list
> lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lactf