[arin-ppml] RIPE/ITU

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 26, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> You might want to look into APNIC's NIR model which is exactly
>> that, and then make a formal proposal. 
> 
> My understanding is that the people at APNIC are not exactly delighted with the NIR model; it was a concession to some of the same political pressures that are now leading to the call for CIRs. Indeed, it is a bit inconsistent for this community to argue against the Ramadass proposal for CIRs and then propose NIRs instead. I prefer McTim's approach of supporting the principle that addresses should be allocated to users (ASs) and not to governments or other entities who want to interpose themselves as intermediaries. 
> 
> If it comes down to a choice between NIRs and CIRs, then the only relevant difference is whether the RIRs retain a monopoly on higher-level allocations or not. I think that's a weak position to be in. Here we need to frankly realize that the issues are fundamentally political. 
> 
> Note that the ITU proposal for CIRs does not propose to make them exclusive, but rather proposes that an ITU-mediated CIR be an additional option. If one supports competing ISPs, why not alternative address registries? One cannot argue against this option on the grounds that we don't have enough ipv6 addresses to make it viable; we do. One cannot argue against it on the grounds that it messes up the efficiency of routing, because new, RIR-sanctioned NIRs or new RIRs carved out of existing ones would have basically the same effects on routing. 
> 
Hey, I know... How about competing national laws in the same country... Each citizen gets to choose which congress and which senate and which... 

Oh, wait, that's pretty dumb and I'm willing to bet most governments are unwilling to give up their monopolies on the creation of national laws.

The difference between ITU CIRs vs. APNIC NIRs is that APNIC NIRs still participate in the APNIC policy process and are still subject to APNIC policies.

I have no problem with the ITU having CIRs, so long as those CIRs are subjugate to and agree to abide by the RIR policies set by the community
process in their respective regions.  Absent that, CIRs vs. LIRs seem like a really good way to subvert the public policy process currently in place
and replace it with a land-rush amongst the various countries to try and grab as much IPv6 space as they can.

Under the current RIR model, I have trouble imagining a scenario where any developing nation has difficulty getting the address space they need.
Under likely ITU models, this may or may not be the same.

Under the current RIR model, I have trouble imagining a scenario where any developed nation has difficulty getting the address space they need.
Under likely ITU models, I can foresee significant issues in this area.

Owen