Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Wed Mar 3 05:27:52 EST 2010
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.
Your use of the word "monopoly" gives me a twitch every time I hear it. :-)
You, as well as Dr. Suresh Ramadass imply a commercial monopoly - by
saying that another source of IP addresses would benefit the consumer.
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.
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, and I think you'll find a lot of people
who'll agree with the view that keeping the Internet as stable as
possible, is a good thing. I cannot see a valid reason 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.
Now if you're speaking about institutional monopoly, then yes, an
institutional monopoly is in place, specifically for the reason I have
explained above. That's what managed resources as all about. 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?
With a managed commodity, too many cooks spoil the broth.
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
More information about the ARIN-PPML