[ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region

[william at elan.net]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:

> > This brings up a new question for me.  When AfriNIC becomes a reality are
> > they going to implement this policy any way?  If so, we may as well do it
> > now.  I don't agree with it, but if it's a future reality why wait.
> >
> We don't know what AfriNIC or who AfriNIC will be _IF_ it ever actually
> exists.  We think it probably will exist at some indeterminant point in
> the future.  We have some reason to believe that there may, at this time,
> be enough support for this in Africa that if it did exist right now, this
> policy might pass.
> 
> To me, that is far from a certain future reality.

I don't think its any longer question of IF the Afrinic would exist, but 
its rather question of WHEN. Go to www.afrinic.org - you'll find enough
material there to support my assesment.

And there is also other evidence as seen from posts from African ISPs 
on this list that if allocation size for africa was reduced, it would 
bring more African ISP members to ARIN (probably from 50% to 100% more) 
and that would go long way in helping to establish stable base for future 
Afrinic.

> > Is there any accountability on the part of a RIR to the other RIR's or to
> > ICAAN?  For example, could RIPE implement some policies that are good for
> > their members, but are obviously poor for the Internet community as a
> > whole?
> >
> As near as I can tell, the only accountability to ICANN for anything is
> whatever integrity exists within the body.  Verisign has no integrity and
> appears to have no accountability to ICANN.  ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC, while
> I do not agree with them on all fronts, appear to have significant integrity
> and thus hold themselves accountable to ICANN policies.

ARIN, RIPE and APNIC also do not want to be accountable to ICANN as can be
seen from some unilateral actions on behalf of RIR such as the latest 
NRO proposal. The problem is really not with RIRs but with badly organized 
and run ICANN itself (which otherwise would not have alllowed Verisign 
freed run it have had so far), but this is topic for discussions on 
diffent mailing lists.
 
> However, I still think this policy should be rolled into 2002-3 and made
> global.
> Owen

I have a sad feeling that if we try amend 2003-3 (to which AC finally 
agreed to) with such fundamental issue as micro-allocations, then it'll
be delayed even more which is worth for the community. In my view it, 
while having both micro assignments and micro-allocation size reduced is 
/22 or less should be utlimate gole, we should not to prevent just the 
micro-assignments. And Owen, since you have been on most of the last ARIN 
meetings you should remember how hard it was to even push simple 
micro-assignemtns on that forum that has 10:1 ratio between representative 
of LARGE and SMALL ISPs. 

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at elan.net