[arin-ppml] Implementation of NRPM 8.3

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 4/22/2011 9:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Apr 22, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> On 4/22/2011 2:35 PM, John Curran wrote:
>>> On Apr 22, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Whichever your viewpoint of right, is, the problem all this boils
>>>> down to is that the RIR system did not choose to work through the
>>>> United Nations and the world's governments to have countries pass
>>>> laws to enforce aspects of Internet governance, the way that
>>>> the telephone companies did back when the phone network was being
>>>> extended a hundred years ago.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> The "international treaty" approach has distinct strengths and weaknesses
>>> compared to the "multi-stakeholder, private sector led, bottom-up policy"
>>> approach.  We're definitely following the latter approach.
>>>
>>
>> Not 100% though otherwise ARIN wouldn't have joined ITU - and the
>> focus on community-driven policy also carries a lot more weight
>> with the "international treaty" crowd than it does with the courts
>> (who many times don't give a rat's ass what most people want)
>>
> I think you're off base here. I think ARIN joined ITU in order to defend
> our process from their attempts to override it.
>
>> If the RIR system did get pushed into the treaty mechanism at some
>> future date, ARIN would be in a lot stronger position because of these
>> actions.
>>
> Which, frankly, I think is part of the reason for joining ITU.
>
> I remember in KL spending some time talking to the ITU representative
> and explaining to her that the problem most of us have with the ITU is not
> that they are open to the participation of governments, but, the fact that they
> are not so open to the participation of everyone who is not a government.
>

My problem with bodies like the ITU is that they give despots a voice
at the table.  Why should governments like North Korea have any voice
at all in setting Internet Policy?  They have no commercial Internet
activity of any consequence, their only interest in the Internet is to
use it for their government to spy on the rest of the world.  Thus,
they need to stay shut out of making policy.

The ARIN commercial/community consensus ultimately gives the orgs who 
have the most individual users out there connected to the Internet, the 
most powerful voice.  That is the way we want it to stay, because the
Internet is one of the few things that the masses have that their 
governments do not have much control over.  The free flow of information
is the strongest if not the only tool that humanity has to improve the
lot of it's members.

In most areas with Internet penetration even the poorest and most 
politically marginalized groups have access to information via the
Internet that they can use to improve their lot in life.  And time and
again we have had example after example of these groups using it to
do exactly that.

It would be a terrible thing to give many of the despotic governments
that in some cases the Internet has enabled to be overthrown, control
over Internet governance.

Ted

>> As more time passes without major problems, though, chances of that
>> get dimmer.  And I suspect that if ARIN and the RIR system make it
>> through IPv4 runout essentially intact, then it is highly unlikely
>> it ever will.
>>
> Let's hope so.
>
> Owen
>
>
>