[arin-discuss] ITU proclamation regarding CIR's

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/3B/02/T3B020000020002PDFE.pdf
> 
> Just so you know, we (meaning the ARIN board and staff, as 
> well as those of the other RIRs, ISOC, ICANN, and the IETF) 
> are actively engaged at preventing this badness.  

Some of us work for ITU member companies who are also working to prevent
this badness. Remember that the ITU contains representatives of a lot of
countries that you never pay attention to in your entire career, but in
the ITU, those countries have a voice and they get to talk about their
ideas. On the other hand, companies like my employer also have a voice
and put a lot of effort into finding ways to resist the ITU trying to
muscle in on an area that is already covered by the self-regulating,
bottom up, RIR structures.

Make no mistake about it, when the ITU people suggest giving each
country its own RIR-type allocation, they mean giving the ITU control
over IPv6 addressing because the ITU is a creature formed from
representatives of "each country".

> Nonetheless, if any of you (ARIN members) are large companies 
> with government affairs offices and government affairs 
> lawyers/lobbyists, please consider putting them in touch with 
> me or John Curran, so we can let them know how they can help. 
>  Several of ARIN's largest members, notably Verizon, are 
> already engaged on our side of this fight.

Indeed, rather than rushing up to your regulatory/government/legal
affairs folks and telling them why this is bad, it might be best to
start by asking them whether you participate in the ITU, and how the
company decides what position to take in ITU discussions. This is a
political arena, and you may have to play some office politics in order
to get your views across. That works better when you know what you are
facing.

--Michael Dillon