owen at delong.com
Wed Mar 3 20:25:26 EST 2010
>> 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?
> 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?
Because governments are limited to national boundaries and the internet is not.
Because governments, generally, do a poor job of including stakeholders in the
decision making process. Especially when compared to the all-inclusive bottom-
up community consensus based process used in the RIR system.
Because the RIR process, while inclusive, is necessarily slow in comparison to
the speed of innovation on the internet. For stability, that's a good thing. However,
the processes of international accords among multiple governments that would
be required for the governments to assume a controlling role would not be
merely slow, they would be glacial.
Because we have a working system in place with operational history and
governments have little or no experience with the vital details of the
policies in question and even less understanding of the implications of
various changes to those policies.
I'm sure there are probably more reasons, but, those are the ones that
come to mind off the top of my head.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML