AW: RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)

> ... several less-democratic nations have already proven ...
Shurely?
This seems new to me, even if some countries try this hard. Even in countries with hard laws of regulation exist's private or "non-regulated" IP communication over satellite or other (typically "wireless") media or - if IP exist in such countries but is controlled - over simple to use anonymizer and/or mixer proxies by encrypted connections.  And btw: Even simple things like hard encryption was not allowed in many "developed" countries (US, Europa) over  many years (which brought up south africans like Marc S. and others...).

Afaik using a sat dish in countries like Iran or Burma (myan mar) was/is not allowed without a "public" governmental license but more or less of the peoples there run "illegal" dishes to receive satellite TV, radio and / or IP communication.

I'm from the former GDR (DDR) and im shure that our former government (if it still exist) would tried to "control" or "block" IP communication at all and "effective as possible" but - as i remember - they wasn't able to control any communication (even if electronical communication was accessible by only a few geeks or freaks).

Most spreaden "international communication" the peoples got was the western broadcast media (i.e. western german TV which was "not allowed" to see/show). It was not possible to block or even disturb it over longer times and larger areas for them - they tried it often enough.

But, a country specific network adressing will give such regimes or governments new internationally "approved" policies to control national communication on a new level - possibly with "full" legislation by the highest international communities like the UN.

Cheers,

Niels.