Re: New draft of NIR criteria document

["Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@ameritech.net>]

With most of the allocations going to China, Korea and Japan, why would
it be a "consensus", or desirable, to base the allocator (APNIC) in Australia ?

Also, why would a task, such as address allocation, which can be highly automated and
results in a database which can be accessed online, require so many people (33) to operate ?

Lastly, why would people pay for 128-bit addresses, when they can get them free ?

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
http://www.ican.org/what's_new!!!.htm
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
4:17 CN   (CHINA)
4:43 KR   (KOREA,-REPUBLIC-OF)
4:116     JP   (JAPAN)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Geoff Huston" <gih@telstra.net>
To: <nir-discuss@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 1:23 AM
Subject: RE: New draft of NIR criteria document


> Kosuke Ito requested some information from the APNIC Director General on
> 
> "Could you clarify more about your intention why you emphasize to give ISPs 
> the freedom to choose NIR or APNIC to receive the resources as in Sec. 2.5? "
> 
> I would like to respond to this request, and in so doing also note that the 
> NIR policy document, and indeed all APNIC policy documents are an outcome 
> of peer review and the formulation of peer consensus within ourselves as a 
> group - its not a case of constantly bouncing a question and answer ball 
> between each APNIC Interest Group and the Director General, but instead it 
> is a case of attempting to work within ourselves together to understand 
> what the best answers may be. So oin that basis I'll offer my perspectives 
> on a response to this question.
> 
> So here's my take on NIRs and APNIC: the definition of the role of National 
> Internet Registries within APNIC is an outcome of a number of issues 
> concerning the diversity of national positions with respect to the 
> administration of Internet Numbering Resources and, more broadly, Internet 
> Service Provider regulatory frameworks across the Asia Pacific region. NIRs 
> reflect the desire of some national domains to support a local 
> administrative function which operates within the framework of a national 
> language, national character set and a  local timezone.  On the other hand, 
> in some environments a national framework appears to offer no particular 
> benefit, and in such environments direct access to APNIC services is a 
> rational and sound outcome.
> 
> This might lead to the view that some countries have NIRS as an exclusive 
> numbering resource administrator and some national regimes do not, but even 
> that is not sufficient for our region. Within some national environments 
> there is a significant level of diversity, where some local entities, and 
> some multi-national entities are comfortable in dealing with APNIC 
> directly, and prefer to so do, while other local entities see value in 
> having a locally operated administrative function.
> 
> So, as far as I can tell, there is no intent in this NIR proposal to 
> substitute competition and free trade for due and proper administrative 
> control over the Internet Numbering resource. There is, however, the intent 
> to offer levels of choice to each entity that requires numbering resources 
> that accommodates the diversity of national regimes and the diversity of 
> the profile of entities and their preferences.
> 
> 
> kind regards,
> 
>    Geoff Huston
> 
> 
>