pwilson at apnic.net
Sat Feb 27 07:04:28 EST 2010
Speaking for APNIC staff, we not aware that anyone is suggesting or
discussing a phase-out of NIRs in the APNIC region; and I don't know where
that perception has come from. Quite the opposite is true in fact. The
APNIC EC (the Executive Council, our governing body) recently gave its
in-principle approval to a proposal to establish an NIR in India, and I
fully expect that more NIRs will be formed in future.
As for Milton's suggestion of dissatisfaction with the APNIC NIR model,
this is also a misconception. It is true that the model has a long history
and has undergone a number of changes, but today's configuration is the
result of community policymaking which has ensured that the APNIC NIRs can
function well in technical and operational terms. Having achieved that
outcome some years ago, any remaining dissatisfaction with the model was
related primarily to the membership fee structure for NIRs, which was
recently changed after long discussions which are well documented.
--On 27 February 2010 12:43:05 PM +1100 Skeeve Stevens
<Skeeve at eintellego.net> wrote:
> Do you have any reference to where the APNIC community is suggesting
> phasing out the NIR model?
> Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
> eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
> skeeve at eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net
> Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
> www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
> NOC, NOC, who's there?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of McTim
>> Sent: Saturday, 27 February 2010 9:51 AM
>> To: Milton L Mueller
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] RIPE/ITU
>> Hi Milton,
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>> > > -----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;
>> My understanding is that the people who make up the APNIC community
>> are not exactly delighted with the NIR model, and the model is being
>> phased out as not viable.
>> > 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.
>> agreed, but the community hasn't endorsed this idea AFAICS.
>> > 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?
>> "Service areas will be of continental dimensions."
>> In addition there are various other reasons outlined in the Circleid
>> post I sent earlier.
>> > 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,
>> You can actually.
>> > because new, RIR-sanctioned NIRs or new RIRs carved out of existing
>> ones would have basically the same effects on routing.
>> perhaps, or perhaps not, depending on the policies they adopt.
>> > The only way to viably challenge this proposal is to face squarely
>> the political issues and question whether states who gain control of ip
>> addresses will truly allow competitive alternatives, or instead try to
>> leverage their control of the resource to gain more control over
>> internet supply and usage, or to favor incumbent, national champion
>> network operators.
>> or to boost government revenue, or use IP address revenue to feather
>> individual nests, or not develop policies in an open, transparent
>> manner, etc, etc.
>> > One can also try to question the need for this proposal (solution in
>> search of a problem). There is merit in this argument, but the issue is
>> not quite as simple as it may seem. Developing countries aware of the
>> landrush for ipv4 addresses that took place in the early stages of the
>> internet's development have a legitimate reason to worry about whether
>> history will repeat itself. An inherent feature of needs-based
>> allocations is that developed economies will be able to show "need"
>> well before undeveloped ones. The ITU is basically arguing for a system
>> of reservations that guarantees each nation-state a substantial chunk
>> of address resources just in case that happens. Naturally enough, given
>> its basis in an intergovernmental organization, the ITU considers
>> nation-states the appropriate stewards for these reservations.
>> Speaking of "reservations" I am under the impression that it is the
>> IETF that instructs the IANA to reserve IP blocks. If this is
>> correct, then the ITU and the RIR policy lists are not the correct
>> fora to discuss this proposal. The ITU should write a draft RFC and
>> submit it to the IETF. Perhaps I am mistaken.
>> > If setting aside address block reservations were the ONLY price we
>> had to pay to assuage these political concerns, I would say, "do it."
>> But other prices could be extracted - as I explained above, linking ip
>> address allocations to the nation state system so closely could have
>> serious political and regulatory repercussions. That price is not worth
>> I hope you plan to say this to the ITU in March!
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg at apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99
More information about the ARIN-PPML