[arin-ppml] RIPE/ITU

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Wed Mar 17 04:34:51 EDT 2010

The ITU created a correspondence group that will better define problems and possible solutions. 
I haven't read your draft yet but it looks like exactly the kind of contribution that would  be useful in that context. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf at tndh.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 6:28 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] RIPE/ITU
> I was on vacation when this thread went by on PPML, so I am sure I am
> missing context. In any case I have had an allocation proposal around in
> various forms for close to a decade that could impact this discussion:
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hain-ipv6-geo-addr-01.txt
> A few years ago just after ITU meetings the copy on my personal server
> would
> get lots of hits, but I haven't looked lately. It deals with the
> 'control
> issue' by pre-allocating on a global basis. The questions I have gotten
> about it relate to alignment with national borders, but all that drops
> off
> once people realize it removes -all control-. As you noted there is a
> cultural mismatch between the communities over process, but at the end
> of
> the day they are both stuck in the mindset that they want to exercise
> control over the resource.
> The only technical objection to the proposal is that it doesn't align
> with
> historical business practice. More specifically the topology that exists
> would not align traffic flows with existing financial relationships. My
> response is that topology is changing all the time, and it could easily
> evolve to deal with this allocation approach if people wanted to. The
> biggest issue most people have is that they see the routing core as
> having
> to handle one-and-only-one allocation model, where in reality it already
> handles multiple virtual tables for private vpn's, so adding yet one
> more
> for this scheme is technically trivial. People just need to decide that
> doing so is cheaper than the alternative of a bloated routing table from
> random PI, or complete loss of control due to regulatory requirements.
> So
> far as you have noted they are much more about maintaining the status
> quo
> than really thinking about alternatives and what might be necessary to
> implement them.
> Tony
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On
> > Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 6:06 PM
> > To: David Farmer
> > Cc: ARIN PPL (arin-ppml at arin.net)
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] RIPE/ITU
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: David Farmer [farmer at umn.edu]
> >
> > >I've been thinking about this for a couple days, I'm not necessarily
> > >sure big changes are required in government or in the way we do
> things
> > >either.  It may really only take some subtle changes, more in the way
> > we
> > >each think about things, we need to help each other understand there
> > is
> > >a roles for both parties to play here.  Then maybe some tweaks in our
> > >process could help too.
> >
> > I believe it will take big, long-term cultural changes, but on the
> > whole your attitude and suggestions are constructive.
> >
> > >I'll point out that our PDP is not unlike a notice-and-comment
> > >rulemaking process that is common in many governments.  But, our PDP
> > has
> > >been turbo charged with Internet technologies like email and remote
> > >meeting participation over chat and video streaming, etc...  Rather
> > than
> > >only using 19th century technologies like face-to-face meetings and
> > >letters.
> >
> > first, don't underestimate the degree to which RIRs, IETF and ICANN
> > rely on f2f meetings using "19th century" technologies like jet planes
> > and computerized travel reservation intermediaries. Of course these
> > meetings build on an underlying infrastructure of online discussion,
> > texts and coordination, but speaking from experience, if you don't go
> > to an ICANN meeting you don't really know what's going on and won't be
> > that influential, and I suspect the RIRs are similar (will go to my
> > first ARIN meeting in toronto; have been to a RIPE).
> > second, you're right about notice and comment, but to understand and
> > intervene in those processes via N&C one must be quite specialized.
> > anyway I think your idea about allowing written submissions is great,
> > that would help some civil society organizations not just govts, but
> it
> > wouldn't fundamentally alter the dynamics, because whoever comments
> > still would have to be a highly specialized follower of the process
> > with sufficient technical expertise to understand what it means, e.g.,
> > to understand the policy implications of changing the way SWIP data is
> > collected and distributed.
> >
> > >So maybe we need to work with governments to get them a little more
> > >comfortable using Internet technologies in the policy making
> > processes.
> >
> > Good luck with that. And I am not being sarcastic, I am wishing you
> > well. It's taken about 10 years for us to get the businesspeople and
> IP
> > lawyers in ICANN to feel comfortable with online discussions via email
> > or wikis. We're still working on the govs. But some of them have
> > insitutional constraints on what they can say, they are part of a
> > hierarchical structure which requires the rep to go back to their
> > superiors for approval before they can say anything. This will not
> > change overnight.
> >
> > A good experience if you want to "train up" for this work with
> > governments would be to attend a meeting or consultation of the
> > Internet Governance Forum, which succeeded in combining business,
> > internet techies, govts and civil society but its interactions still
> > reflect the significant cultural/organizational differences, with a
> few
> > notable exceptions. Or maybe accompany John C. and me to the ITU
> > meeting. Breathe the atmosphere....
> >
> > >The tweaks in our process could be as simple as providing an
> > opportunity
> > >for formal written comments to be submitted relating to Draft
> Policies
> > >that are up for adoption consideration at public policy meetings.
> > Such
> > >formal comments could maybe be included in the meeting materials, and
> > >maybe a summary provided as part of the presentation prior to the
> > floor
> > >discussion of each Draft Policy.
> > >Then maybe a final opportunity for formal written comments again in
> > the
> > >Last Call step of the process.
> >
> > Noted. I like this idea.
> >
> > >Further, make it clear that is any
> > >government, not only those in ARIN's geographic region, just like
> > anyone
> > >else in region or not is welcome to participate.
> >
> > Another good idea.
> > But again, the essential constraint is the supply of someone from a
> > government willing to follow ip address arcana. Following RIRs is
> > extremely hard for ME; you can imagine what it would be like for a
> mid-
> > level bureaucrat in the Ministry of Information.
> >
> > >I completely agree with you that some group of government
> > >representatives with special powers is not a good idea.
> >
> > Good. Hold on to that thought.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list