[arin-ppml] Fw: Accusation of fundamental conflict ofinterest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN

[Mike Burns]

Hi David,

I appreciate what you are saying and I fear the ITU.

It would be better if the decision to allow competing registries came from 
the community.
But as the community's voice is currently heard, it is filtered through the 
very organizations which have a self-preservation component, and condensed 
down to a very small group of individuals whose names appear as members of 
the RIR boards, members of the ASO and the NRO. Essentially these are all 
the same people.

Be that as it may, I am trying to participate in the process you describe, 
and I have expressed that the decisionmakers, whomever they are,  should be 
presented with information from all sides.
It's just that if we let ASO/NRO/RIRs  decide, the decision is a foregone 
conclusion that would not appear impartial to me, anyway.

Regards,
Mike



> And why do you think the global Internet governance community will be 
> happy with the DoC or NTIA (US Gov) being the arbiter of this situation? 
> The global community wants the US Gov less directly in control of 
> Internet, not more in control.
>
> It is in the interest of everyone involved the RIRs, IANA, ICANN, the 
> majority of Legacy Address holders, and everyone who supports a free and 
> open Internet for this to be resolved within the Internet industry 
> self-governance frame work in this situation ICANN or maybe IETF.  If we 
> involve government regulators as more than just another stake-holder in 
> the overall process, then I fear that ultimately the ITU will be put in 
> charge.  The ITU would not be a good body for anyone involved in this 
> discussion to be the arbiter of this situation.
>
> An open discussion is necessary and the only way this is going to be 
> resolved.  If you don't think that it is a good idea to change the system 
> with alternate registries or removal of the needs basis, you still need to 
> respectively listen to the proponents of changing the system.  And those 
> that want to change the system, you need to provide reasoned proposals, 
> arguments, and counter arguments, not just one or twice, but over and 
> over.  You are asking for big changes, if your changes are going to work 
> you need a large portion of the community to accept your new ideas, this 
> take time and hard work, but in the end the system what ever it ends up 
> being will be better for it.
>
> I think most people realize that things are going to change, but I'm not 
> sure we have a consensus on how to react to those changes and how the 
> system will change to meet the new realities.
>
> -- 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================

Hi David,

I appreciate what you are saying and I fear the ITU.

It would be better if the decision to allow competing registries came from 
the community.
But as the community's voice is currently heard, it is filtered through the 
very organizations which have a self-preservation component, and condensed 
down to a very small group of individuals whose names appear as members of 
the RIR boards, members of the ASO and the NRO. Essentially these are all 
the same people.

Be that as it may, I am trying to participate in the process you describe, 
and I have expressed that the decisionmakers, whomever they are,  should be 
presented with information from all sides.
It's just that if we let ASO/NRO/RIRs  decide, the decision is a foregone 
conclusion that would not appear impartial to me, anyway.

Regards,
Mike