[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] They're out of IPv4 Addresses!

[Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro]

These are the transcripts (easy reading) of what Geoff Huston said at the
APNIC 32 Opening Plenary in Bussan, South Korea. I was in the audience and
enjoyed it, see:
http://meetings.apnic.net/32/program/opening-plenary/transcript [#Transition
from IPv4 to IPv6 #Google #NATs #Access ]


These are links to some of Geoff's papers:


   -  On the Content economy, his views published on his website in 2001,
   see:  http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2001-06/2001-06-content.html
   - On Carriage v Content, his views published on his website in July,
   2012, see:  http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2012-07/carriagevcontent.html.
   He talks briefly about ITRs and ETNO proposal in relation to the ITRs





On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>wrote:

> Hi John
>
> I can't verify Geoff's technical explanation, but he did work for Telstra
> as one of their star technical people and he is chief scientist with APNIC.
> And I did use the term carrier  but, to be more precise, ISPs in this
> country are also carriers - which may not be the case in other legislative
> regimes.  As to privacy, the other point Geoff  makes is that what is
> happening is contrary to the Interception legislation - or should be
> considered so. The difficulty with privacy legislation (not just in
> Australia) is the definition of 'personal information' which is the
> lynchpin of whether or not privacy has been breached.  Does it include
> phone numbers and IP addresses.  There are suggested amendments to the
> privacy legislation here that would, in essence, include information - that
> combined with other information, can identify a person (paraphrased) But
> one of the privacy issues is how personal information - that which is being
> protected - is defined.
>
> HOlly
> On 17/09/2012, at 2:42 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>
> >> As he explains, with NATing, the carriers gain information about what
> IP addresses are going where - information they can flog to advertisers.
> >
> > This argument makes no sense.  A snoopy ISP could as easily collect this
> information from non-NAT routers as from NAT boxes.
> >
> > In Australia, I would have thought that privacy laws would make selling
> that kind of information illegal.  In the US they use noxious services like
> phorm to collect and sell info, no NAT needed.
> >
> > R's,
> > John_______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>



-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851