[LACNIC/Napla] Fwd: [icacaribbean] Dominican Government spurs the Network Access Point
raul at lacnic.net
Wed Mar 14 14:16:44 BRT 2007
Good comment. I tend to agree with those issues that you have pointed out.
Buen comentario. En general estoy de acuerdo con los puntos que has remarcado.
At 02:06 p.m. 14/03/2007, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>On Mar 14, 2007, at 6:55 AM, Erick Iriarte Ahon wrote:
> > ...un desarrollo desde el gobierno, distinto a los procesos desde
> > el sector privado, siendo asi, para una clasificacion unos vienen
> > impulsados/promovidos/fomentados/generados desde el sector gob, los
> > otros tienen en la autoregulacion (porque al final es una
> > autoregulacion basada en el acuerdo y manifestacion de voluntades)
> > del sector privado.
>On Mar 14, 2007, at 7:29 AM, Raul Echeberria wrote:
> > ...el proyecto de Rep. Dominicana es algo que funcionara como si
> > fuera un proyecto privado pero financiado por el gobierno. No creo
> > que se necesite de ninguna regulación al respecto. El mercado dirá
> > si funciona o no.
>Speaking from PCH's point of view, although we're normally invited to
>assist in the formation of an IX by either a group of ISPs, or by a
>national ISP industry association, there have also been occasions,
>much less frequent, when ISPs simply haven't been getting an IX
>built, and a particularly forward-thinking ministry of communications
>or treasury or regulator asks us to assist, in order to stem the
>flight of capital through unreciprocated internationally-purchased
>transit. Jamaica is one such country, for example. There are also
>many successful IXes which have received start-up funding from
>governments. Also, governments participate in most exchanges, as
>ordinary users, connecting their BGP routers to the switch fabric.
>And this is also desirable. So I wouldn't say that governmental
>involvement is problematic, per se.
>I believe, however, that regulation in this area is a much more
>delicate issue. We had a very interesting panel discussion at the
>APRICOT meeting two weeks ago, on what the role of government might
>be with respect to Internet exchange points or Internet traffic
>exchange between ISPs. We started with a very diverse group of
>panelists, but found common ground, which surprised me. Essentially
>all of the panelists agreed that a government was well within its
>rights to make sure that at least one IX exists within its borders,
>and that domestic traffic (traffic from one person inside the country
>to another person inside the country) does not cross the national
>border. Also, that if an IX begins to have trouble, losing
>participants or traffic, and no other IX comes into existence to
>solve the problem, that the government should probably step in to
>stabilize it, rather than just watching it collapse, as happened in
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Napla mailing list
>Napla at lacnic.net
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/721
>- Release Date: 13/03/2007 04:51 p.m.
More information about the Napla