[arin-ppml] ARIN and the ITU
owen at delong.com
Fri Jul 2 18:56:34 EDT 2010
On Jul 2, 2010, at 3:38 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Influence in government is a two way street.
> I realize that if ITU doesn't understand IP address allocation that
> they cannot exert any kind of control at all, direct or indirect. But
> by educating them, "gaining a voice in the union" as it were, that
> is also an invitation for them to "gain a voice with us"
You are very wrong in believing that the ITU cannot exert control
if they don't understand addressing. The ITU can exert control if
they THINK they understand addressing, whether they have any
real understanding or not.
I would much rather invite the ITU to speak as a single voice in the
ARIN crowd than have the ITU dictate to ARIN through the various
governments in the ARIN service region how address policy will be
> It's a two way street. I know probably some of you don't believe
> me or even understand what I'm talking about but just remember this
> 10 years from now because by then you will understand.
A two way street where we influence the ITU and ITU has some
(limited) influence on us is vastly preferable to a one-way street
where we have no influence on the ITU and the ITU decides
unilaterally to take control of global IP addressing policy.
> Quite a lot of "governance" these days is done this way. For
> example in the US do you seriously think that the Chinese Government's
> opinions have absolutely no effect on what the US Government does?
Of course they have some effect, as should all of our global neighbors
be able to have some input into the process. Isolationism is a strategy
which has not worked particularly well in the past when some amount
of isolation was possible. It is an utter failure today when we are all
sharing an ever smaller ball of land and water with ever increasing
levels of connectedness amongst the various peoples.
> When the US Government is currently essentially funded by the
> Chinese? Putting it another way, it isn't really necessary for
> the Chinese to invade, occupy and control the United States. They
> already have the means to make the US Government do whatever they
> want it to.
I wouldn't go quite that far. The economic situation between the US
and China is more one of mutually assured destruction than of
master/slave as you describe.
> By opening relations with ITU, ARIN may think it's in the drivers
> seat of that relationship now, but it won't stay that way. Once
> the ITU members are educated and understand, they are going to want
> to inject their "perspective and experience" back into ARIN the same
> way that ARIN wants to inject it's "perspective and experience"
> into the ITU, now.
If you haven't noticed, the latter was already happening, so, ARIN
has decided to join the ITU in response.
> I'm not saying this is all bad. ARIN needs to be part of the recognized
> power structure in the world government or when things get tight then the global players are going to exert pressure on the existing recognized power structure to take over IP allocations from the RIRs. It is much better now for ARIN to get engaged with that crew so that when the screws get turned later on, the ITU will be supportive of ARIN and push back against the governments (who really only have their own national interests at heart) so that nobody does anything radical. But, the downside is that when you get involved in their business,
> they are going to get involved in your business.
I think you have the order of occurrence here reversed. You should
review the Kuala Lumpur session with the ITU at APNIC for some
examples if you need a reference point.
> I just find it very foolish of people to think that IP address
> assignment is somehow "above the law" and not of interest to the
> world's governments. Trust me, if the RIRs had screwed up address
> assignment the governments would have taken it over a long time
> ago, probably under the auspices of the ITU. That is exactly
> what happened when the registrars screwed up with the DNS system, and WIPO stepped in and ordered ICANN to come up with the UDRP. And nowadays ICANN won't do anything significant with the DNS system unless they go to WIPO first.
Some of us would argue that WIPO did more damage than even
the registrars, but, that's a bit off topic for this list.
> On 7/2/2010 2:56 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
>> ARINs involvement in the ITU does not equal government control of ARIN, it
>> may however equal ARIN influence of government.
>> My Android sent this message.
>> On Jul 2, 2010 2:37 AM, "Eliot Lear"<lear at cisco.com> wrote:
>> On 6/30/10 8:45 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> I have to agree mostly with Milton here, also I'll point out that
>>> recently ARIN joined the ITU and as the ITU is an agency of the
>>> United Nations, ARIN has in some ways lost it's independence
>>> from the government.
>> I don't know of a single process change that has occurred because ARIN
>> has joined the ITU as a sector member. Moreover, by doing so, ARIN has
>> gained a voice within the Union. So have three of the four other RIRs.
>> It's important that ARIN and the other RIRs make use of that voice to
>> explain how the Internet works. Absent that voice, a void has existed
>> that has been filled with misinformation.
>> 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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML