[arin-ppml] Can a personal property approach ever transition into multi-stakeholder, private sector led, bottom-up policy development model?
jcurran at arin.net
Thu Apr 28 16:05:13 EDT 2011
On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:31 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> The reality (at least as I see it) is that at least some legacy holders believe (if they consider the question at all) that the IP addresses in their inventory are their asset to do with as they please.
Let's explore that statement a little further to see if we can get
some clarity on underlying issues...
1) It's the position of many stakeholders that we should operate
in a model of multi-stakeholder, private sector led, bottom-up
policy development model of technical coordination for these
identifies that acts for the benefit of global Internet users.
2) Such policy development model should not only allow open
participation, but ideally should be based on the voluntary
contractual agreement of participants for purposes of
implementation of the developed policies. This also means
that no governmental or regulatory mandates are necessary
for the system to operate effectively.
3) Presume an hypothetical organization (JKL) that does this for
all IP address holders globally, and also provides for big
picture overall policy goals like periodic recompetition,
integrity protections, transparency, accountability, etc.
Once that's all up and running just fine, how do the existing
legacy address holders transition into the system? It is clear
that has to happen if you want to be able to evolve and set
effective policies systemwide, but how does such a transition
for those outside the system occur?
A government mandate or ruling to that effect is suboptimal, since
that's contrary to the principles that we are building something
that doesn't require such to operate. Yet, in the absence of such
forms of governmental involvement, there is unlikely to be any
benefit for parties working outside the system to ever participate,
as they already have all the benefits of the system without any
of encumbrances. A few might, but there will be many that see
no reason to do so.
Can we actually have *any* multi-stakeholder, private sector led,
bottom-up policy development system for technical coordination
of identifiers at the same time as we have parties presently that:
1) have no existing contractual requirements to participate in the
system, but 2) presently hold number resources in their belief as
How would such a transition ever occur? Do you deprive those outside
the system of the benefits to encourage participation, or does the
community decide that the presence of parties without contracts yet
with resources means that they should operate eternally outside the
system? Or do they compromise on the "government mandate" approach
and obtain one, despite the departure from the very framework that
has been established?
These are some of the underlying questions to the situation that
we're presently facing, and appears quite possible that parties
"who feel IP addresses are their asset to do with as they please"
are inherently incompatible with the goals that we've set for
private sector led, bottom-up policy development.
President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-PPML