<div class="gmail_quote"><div>Ted</div><div>In the face of runout there is good reason to build out, there are many new and proposed networks. CARICOM, OECS, Disaster and Public Safety, Financial and Business, Education.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Provision of incentives to ensure timely transition in the face of a possible secondary market would depend on how its possibly going to affect you in the long run. Especially in areas of the region with first time infrastructure costs and planning and investment shortfalls in relation to the whole.</div>
<div><<And, such a model is much more expensive, much more labor intensive,<br><<than the old concentrated intelligence model.</div><div><br></div><div>Offering direct incentives for v6 deployment. The returns policy is not a direct incentive, it a measure of control in addition to incentives already employed and to be employed?</div>
<div><br></div><div>I don't get hulu in my region, :) and 10year olds will probably always have to be supervised and it is already a challenge in the Internet age.</div><div><br></div><div>I think, the meteoric rise in Internet use suggest that the poor among us are very willing to pay, best thing we have had since slice bread I would say.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Rudi Daniel</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
RudOlph Daniel wrote:<br>
> This goes right to the heart of v4/v6 transistion.<br>
> If we accept what Jeff Houston at APNIC reported : that only 40 % of<br>
> legacy space is routed and that 3.6 % of allocated addresses are<br>
> actually occupied by visible hosts, then it is perhaps worth speculating<br>
> that there are out there, market makers who are laying the foundation to<br>
> profit from "runout".<br>
><br>
<br>
I'm sure there are.<br>
<br>
> The ideology of stewardship of a common pool, whilst displaying good<br>
> economic and social properties, does not prevent hoarding by one party<br>
> thereby restricting use by another party.<br>
><br>
<br>
Correct.<br>
<br>
> Remember that allocation is based on case by case demonstration of need.<br>
> Such a procedure is more akin to your central city planning function and<br>
> therefore relies heavily on the accuracy of the information or should I<br>
> say the symmetry of information between the requestor and the registry.<br>
> So when you get the kind of market conditions suggested by Houston, it<br>
> become a major challenge to the case by case administration process. In<br>
> other words, your staff begin to complain of headaches :)<br>
><br>
> Because of the legacy space situation, ARIN's policies have more impact<br>
> than any other RIR.<br>
> So it can also be argued that how legacy space is managed at "runout"<br>
> directly affects not only the timely adoption of v6, but also Internet<br>
> development and capacity building in the RIRs region.<br>
><br>
<br>
You can make that argument regardless of whether ARIN's policies have<br>
more impact than any other RIR, ARIN is not unique in having some<br>
unused space in it's IPv4 allocations. But, go on,<br>
<br>
> ARIN as a region possibly has the widest digital divide of the RIRs:<br>
> contrasting, the USA, Canada, and the 22 small Caribbean states.<br>
><br>
> Supposing we accept the existence of a v4 runout market, good<br>
> stewardship of the resource should therefore prevent application and<br>
> innovation in developing markets from becoming too expensive due to<br>
> scarcity value of the resource.<br>
><br>
> Arin already provides support for developing countries in its region so<br>
> it is not so difficult to develop policy to use those portions of its<br>
> region seeking internet development and capacity building to promote v6<br>
> adoption in a myriad of practical ways, since it not only address the<br>
> digital divide but also brings them up to speed in the face of market<br>
> challenges. Did someone propose IPv6 in a box at a public meeting?<br>
><br>
<br>
Are you advocating that ARIN offer developing countries in it's region<br>
IPv4 resources in exchange for deploying IPv6?<br>
<br>
> The runout market makers are also going to be challenged by new fledging<br>
> v6 networks which in themselves are going to act as a test bed for a<br>
> host of network technical issues which currently confront easy adoption<br>
> of v6. It also provides an opportunity to close the digital divide by<br>
> providing subsidies at the bottom where the rate of return is far<br>
> greater in the medium to long term than fighting a protracted war with<br>
> deeply entrenched IP racketeers.<br>
><br>
<br>
Is this advocating ARIN make payments to orgs who don't have any<br>
IP deployed because then they will build out IPv6, instead of trying<br>
to build out IPv4?<br>
<br>
> There is also another perspective here, The ARINCaribbean is not unlike<br>
> Africa, in that it has a very high penetration of Mobile; and so quick<br>
> adoption of v6 is probably beneficial to economic growth in the region<br>
> especially since the global economic downturn. But v6 adoption requires<br>
> good planning, investment and collaboration: All of these are in short<br>
> supply where the digital divide is a wide one.<br>
<br>
Are you saying good IPv6 planning, investment and collaboration is in<br>
short supply in the ARIN region?<br>
<br>
> Even without a v4 runout headache, there are still big challenges<br>
> confronting broadband access in rural areas and low income populations<br>
> and it is interesting to note (from an opinion expressed to me) that<br>
> these challenges are probably greater than those for the voice telephony<br>
> of old.<br>
><br>
<br>
I think there's a lot of implications here your making. I happen to<br>
agree with some of them, but I think that the problem isn't solvable<br>
in the way I think your implying. Here is my $0.02 on why;<br>
<br>
With the old POTS telephoney the biggest challenge<br>
was running a pair of copper wires for miles. Out in the sticks you had<br>
the freedom of running a 10 mile copper pair subscriber line stuck to<br>
barbed wire cow pasture fences, with the appropriate load coils in it.<br>
You could cover very large distances with a very DUMB network, where all<br>
the expensive intelligence is located in a single CO.<br>
<br>
This gives huge savings when you can do this.<br>
<br>
With any kind of higher speed broadband, you have to run DSL, or cable<br>
TV cable, or fiber - all of which require repeaters, which require<br>
power, and maintainence, and so on and so on. These push the<br>
intelligence out into the field, out into the network.<br>
<br>
The model of a single large central office with concentrated<br>
intelligence and a dumb network doesn't hold. Instead, a new model<br>
of distributed intelligence is used.<br>
<br>
And, such a model is much more expensive, much more labor intensive,<br>
than the old concentrated intelligence model.<br>
<br>
Thus, with the old model you could afford to subsidize the rural and low<br>
income populations. You could strategically place the CO's on the edge<br>
of the low income regions, so that the CO served a mix of low income and<br>
high income areas, and thus, you would essentially subsidize the low<br>
income areas. Because serving the low income areas was so cheap (since<br>
the network cost practically nothing) and you had to have the CO there<br>
serving the high-income areas anyway, there was little objection.<br>
<br>
In the new model, since every region that the network is in has to be<br>
funded, it is very easy for the high-income but unschooled-in-networking<br>
types to understand that when you were sending expensive intelligence<br>
into low-income regions, that they were funding these areas. And, the<br>
costs are far far higher than the old model. So naturally, they<br>
objected to this.<br>
<br>
This is why the digital divide exists at all. To put it simply, it<br>
costs a lot more money to hand out free Internet access than to hand out<br>
free voice access, and Internet access is not a health-and-safety issue,<br>
the way that 911-emergency access is on voice. So, you cannot use moral<br>
persuasion to convince the high-income types that they must fund<br>
Internet Access for the have-nots, and since doing this funding is so<br>
expensive, there is no way to slip in these subsidies under the table<br>
without the high-income types figuring it out.<br>
<br>
And more importantly, since Internet Access is so new (it's only<br>
been around for 15 years for the masses, after all) the societal<br>
structures to prevent undesirable behavior on it (such as piracy,<br>
child exploitation, etc.) do not yet exist and are still being figured<br>
out - as a result we have a LOT of objectionable behavior on the<br>
Internet, behavior PARTICULARLY objectionable to someone subsidizing<br>
Internet access for one of the not-haves. To put it succinctly, why<br>
should the rich subsidize a have-not's porno surfing Playboy and<br>
watching episodes of Lost off hulu?<br>
<br>
This is why, IMHO, the digital divide isn't currently a solvable<br>
problem. In voice service today, we can provide a voice line that<br>
will ONLY take 911 calls, to someone who is so dirt poor that<br>
they cannot even afford an extra $10 a month for a POTS line.<br>
The societal structures exist to do this and get the have's to<br>
pay for it, and the haves mostly agree that there's a moral<br>
imperative for them to do this.<br>
<br>
But, in Internet service today it's an all-or-nothing proposition.<br>
We cannot provide an Internet connection that will ONLY<br>
allow the have-nots to access educational stuff, or job-hunting<br>
stuff, or other pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps stuff that<br>
the haves would all agree that there's a moral imperative to supply<br>
to the have-nots. Instead, if we supply it, they get everything,<br>
including the stuff that they shouldn't be wasting their time on.<br>
<br>
One of the biggest objections I hear about the food stamp program<br>
in the United States comes from when "the poor" who are on food<br>
stamps walk though the grocery store checkout line, carrying<br>
food and beer - and pay cash for the beer and cigarettes, and<br>
food stamps for the food. This gives the impression that taxpayer<br>
dollars are funding alcohol and smoking, and turns every taxpayer<br>
who sees this happening in the grocery store against the food stamp<br>
program. So much so, in fact, that many states have gone to a<br>
credit card system, that is unobtrusive, so that "the poor" who<br>
are using this can get through the checkout line without anyone<br>
realizing they are using public assistance. Ostensibly this is<br>
to protect the privacy of the poor, but it also helps to reduce<br>
public outrage at the perceived abuse of the program, which is<br>
almost certainly the main reason the politicians went for it.<br>
<br>
I suspect that if there would ever be a serious movement (at least<br>
in the United States) to make the same claim that Internet Access<br>
was on par with voiceline access as a moral imperative for the<br>
have-nots, that the outrage over public subsidies to the have-nots<br>
for using publically-paid Internet service to access <a href="http://playboy.com" target="_blank">playboy.com</a><br>
would make the complaints about the food stamp program look like<br>
a match next to a forest fire.<br>
<br>
The digital divide isn't going to be solvable until the Internet<br>
is cleaned up, and the worthless content (ie: all the sex stuff)<br>
is behind lock and key, and the next-to-worthless stuff (ie: the<br>
episodes of Lost on <a href="http://hulu.com" target="_blank">hulu.com</a>) is behind a door that can be closed<br>
if needed.<br>
<br>
The day you can allow your 10-year-old kid onto the Internet,<br>
unsupervised, is the day the digital divide CAN be closed. Until<br>
then, Internet Service is electronic beer and cigarettes, and<br>
the poor are gonna have to pay cash.<br>
<br>
Just my $0.02<br>
<br>
Ted<br>
<br>
<br>
> Rudi Daniel<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:07 AM, John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Nov 12, 2009, at 2:55 AM, RudOlph Daniel wrote:<br>
> > ...<br>
> > What I am suggesting here is that the network and its policies is<br>
> not yet mature/homogeneous enough to provide a safety net for<br>
> developing economies like the Caribbean in the face of the majority<br>
> of this RIR with its far superior knowledge and experience, but yet<br>
> not able to foresee the future black market shenanigans of a<br>
> creative first world business professional class leveraging the<br>
> scarcity value of a resource for considerable profit.<br>
><br>
> Rudi -<br>
><br>
> How should ARIN provide a safety net for developing economies in<br>
> this region? To the extent that you have a suggestion, this is<br>
> definitely the right place to discuss it.<br>
><br>
> /John<br>
><br>
> John Curran<br>
> President and CEO<br>
> ARIN<br>
><br>
><br>
><br><br></blockquote></div>