[arin-ppml] RIPE/ITU

Frank Bulk - iName.com frnkblk at iname.com
Wed Mar 3 10:51:40 EST 2010

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
(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


-----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.

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
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 mailing list