[arin-ppml] RIPE/ITU

[James Hess]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> All resources are managed. The issue is how.
An example of a resource that is unmanaged, is LAN capacity. There is
no outside entity  determining how much bandwidth you need in your
LAN.   You don't  normally need to fill out an application and send
off to a registry to justify your need for buying gigabit switches
instead of   Coax and 10Base5 network kit.

But in the case of IP Address space, the resource is  _centrally_ managed.
And hierarchically distributed,  in a  manner  that meets  certain
technical needs of the internet.   Including needs related to
necessary uniqueness of IP network prefixes, aggregability,   and
effective filtering.

"Fairness" as in equality  is not a criteria in distribution of IP
addresses.   RIRs don't give Bob 65,535  IP addresses when he only
needs 100,  just because Joe got that many IPs,   the  registries not
only centrally manage IP addresses,  but  they are supposed to  assign
everyone what they can justify,  not  artificially equalized (up or
down) amounts to arbitrarily make assignments "fair"  by some
definition.

Assigning  Bob a network with 65,535  IPs,  just because he is a
"developing person", and still only needs 100 IPs,  is wasteful,  and
wholly unwarranted.

If networks in developing nations have (in the aggregate) not obtained
the use of comparable amounts of IP addresses, it was NOT  that they
were "denied" access to IPs they needed.  It is that they  didn't
really have a justified need for the same amount of IPs, or didn't
apply to their regional registry.


Perhaps we should next discuss  the small number of domain names and
Luxury automobiles in developing nations   (Even if there are no
buyers, how heinous that there aren't exactly the same number
available for sale as in the developed countries!).



> 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.

The thing is,  the internet is not a government resource.
The very essence of  the internet is community.


> 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?

The  RIRs are not  comparable to a  legal system or a judiciary system.
The  RIRs don't have any direct authority over network operators,
except de-facto  authority.

It is more like the level of authority the governance of a
professional society has over its members.

--
-J