[arin-ppml] Implementation of NRPM 8.3
owen at delong.com
Sat Apr 23 00:51:12 EDT 2011
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.
>> 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
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.
> 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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML