[arin-ppml] RIPE/ITU

[Joel Jaeggli]

On 03/03/2010 02:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> According to the ITU presentation by Xiaoya yesterday:
> 
> a) IPv4 early adopter advantage/late adopter disadvantage should
> 	not be repeated in IPv6.

The essential irony that early v6 adopters got their prefixes 10 years
ago should be lost on no-one. While that may have conferred some first
mover advantage, what it mostly was in my experience was a
non-recoverable expense. Maintaining a consistently liberal assignment
policy (which I think the current one is actually) seems like the path
to conferring similar privileges to ipv6 newcomers as those requesting
prefix assignments in the recent past.

> b) "Developing Nations" - The ITU did not specify which ones.
> c) Was not covered by the ITU presentation.
> d) From the presentation, it sounded like the ITU may submit
> 	their desire to become an additional registry through the
> 	global policy process if that's what they decide to do.  The
> 	ITU was clear that nothing has yet been decided, they are
> 	"considering" this matter. The ITU representative did
> 	express surprise and dismay at the level of "overreaction"
> 	from the community at the APNIC meeting.
> e) To at least some extent, they did so yesterday. I think the
> 	meeting yesterday was a very good beginning and that
> 	it was a useful and productive discussion.
> 
> I still think that the idea of the ITU possible CIR model as currently
> described would be extremely destructive to the good of the internet
> and likely harmful to the very countries that the ITU is claiming they
> are attempting to benefit. However, I will say that the ITU does seem
> to be making an attempt to reach out and open a dialog.
> 
> There's a _LOT_ of cultural difference between the ITU organization
> and the RIR communities. The ITU has extremely structured
> membership and is very much oriented to being a forum for
> governments, although industry "sector" members are permitted
> for $20,000/year. ITU meetings are strictly limited to members.
> 
> While I believe that the RIR system is vastly better at representing
> the interests of all stakeholders, I also accept that it is a very
> unfamiliar and difficult concept for someone with a strong
> regulatory background to grasp.
> 
> I think that the discussion yesterday was a good beginning to
> bridging that gap. I hope that the ITU will continue to make efforts
> to keep an open dialogue with the RIR communities. I think that one
> potentially ideal outcome of this process would be for the ITU
> to merely recognize the current RIR structure as the proper
> forum for internet number resource policies and refer their
> interested members to that forum.
> 
> I have no idea how amenable the ITU might be to such an idea.
> 
> I think the best hope of a good outcome will be the result of
> continued dialogue.
> 
> Owen
> 
> On Mar 3, 2010, at 11:51 PM, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
> 
>> This part of the discussion touches on some of the fundamental questions I
>> have about ITU-T's interest in IP address allocation:
>> (a) what does the ITU-T see as the problem with the current system?
>> (b) who are the concerns persons/groups that are telling the ITU-T that
>> there is a problem, and why aren't their letters/concerns shared on the
>> ITU-T's website?
>> (c) have those persons/groups raised the concerns with the applicable
>> RIR(s)?
>> (d) if it's a matter of underrepresentation (i.e. under-developed countries
>> aren't asking for resources because they're not able to or don't currently
>> need do), why doesn't the ITU-T recommend an appropriate policy to each of
>> the RIRs or write an IETF draft that addresses the issue(s)?
>> (e) why doesn't the ITU-T visit and work with the existing address
>> allocation bodies, namely the RIR(s), rather than work outside the current
>> process?
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of William Herrin
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:07 AM
>> To: Milton L Mueller; John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] RIPE/ITU
>>
>>> Le 01/03/2010 08:46, Milton L Mueller a écrit :
>>>> As I've said, it's all about the policies. If the ITU or
>>> anyone else wants to discuss and promote more
>>> reasonable policies I'm all for it. ITU can serve as
>>> a useful countervailing force to the RIR monopoly,
>>> just as it has with ICANN.
>>
>> Hi Milton,
>>
>> I don't see how it helps to have entities compete at the process of
>> giving away a combination of a free-pool resource (IPv6 addresses) and
>> other peoples' money (the routing slots they use).
>>
>> If ITU wants in the IR game that badly, I'd like to see them take on
>> something that the RIRs aren't already dealing with. Perhaps they
>> could draft an RFC and global policy requesting that IANA delegate
>> fc00::/8 to ITU. Whether they ever see an expanded role in IP address
>> management would, of course, then depend on how open and
>> cost-effective a job they do with that off-Internet pool.
>>
>>
>> ITU seems to have talked themselves down from wanting to control ICANN
>> to wanting to control IANA to wanting to be a competitive IR under
>> IANA. They have a little ways to go yet before they come close to
>> talking sense.
>>
>> I could be mistaken, but it seems to me there's essentially no chance
>> of the ARIN community supporting a global proposal to make ITU a
>> competitive IR for public Internet addresses. I would also be
>> surprised if the other regions welcome ITU treading on their turf.
>>
>> Pushing the issue seems to me like an awful lot of effort for ITU to
>> go to just to make a political statement that's as likely as not to
>> backfire and remind everybody why upon the end of NSF funding for the
>> InterNIC a decade and change ago, ITU was not invited to step up.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> 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:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> 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:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>