[arin-ppml] RIPE/ITU

[Milton L Mueller]

-----Original Message-----
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com] 

>Your use of the word "monopoly" gives me a twitch every time I hear it. :-)

Good. 

>I've said it during the IPv6 session at IGF Sharm el Sheikh and I'll say
>it again: the current RIR structure is not a commercial monopoly,
>because the resource it dispenses is a *managed* resource.

All resources are managed. The issue is how. 

>It is managed for one main reason: to ensure one single Internet, an
>Internet that is as stable as can be, and as manageable as can be. It
>has worked very well so far, [blah, blah] why one would try
>to change a system that's working in its core mission: stability. If it
>ain't broke, don't fix it.

Here's what amusing (and unconvincing) about your argument. The real issue in this debate is the role of nation-states in governing internet resources. And what do you compare the RIRs to? 

>I would
>compare this with a country's court system, a country's military, or
>even with the United Nations - after all, they all serve a purpose as an
>institutional monopoly, don't they?

Boy did you walk right into it. You see, my friends, what you have going on here is a large segment of the world's governments asking themselves why a nonprofit, self-formed group of technicians is assuming transnational regulatory and governance powers that, in the past, were held by national governments. That's what this is about. So when you say things like that, you only confirm - and inflame - those perceptions. I am not justifying or supporting those perceptions, I am simply telling you that they exist, and trying to break through the insularity of this community in figuring out how to deal with it. 

Put another way, if you consider the RIRs to be exclusive governance authorities comparable to a country's legal/judiciary system, why the hell shouldn't governments have a controlling role?

I'll be looking forward to your answer to that. 

--MM