Re: New draft of NIR criteria document

[Kosuke Ito <kosuke@bugest.net>]

Hi, Geoff

Thank you for taking care of my query, and very sorry for sending
directly to your Director General in too casual manner.

I understand from the beginning that there is no such a special 
intent in this proposal to substitute competition and free trade 
for due and proper administrative control over the Internet Numbering 
resource.
However, with my personal feeling, if this section is left as is, 
it could lead the result of competition between NIRs and APNIC in 
natural.
All NIRs like to keep big multi-national ISPs as big clients to keep
their business. But so do APNIC.

To keep the current operational scheme with APNIC-NIRs in stable 
and sound, I think there need to implement some sort of exclusivity
at NIRs, which gives some level of respect to NIRs' contribution
of taking a part of APNIC operation and to a whole AP regional 
operation.

Regards,

Kosuke



Geoff Huston wrote:
> 
> 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


-- 
**********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************
Kosuke Ito, Master Planning and Steering Group
IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan
Tel:+81-3-5209-4588  Fax:+81-3-3255-9955
Cell:+81-90-4605-4581
mailto: kosuke@v6pc.jp   http://www.v6pc.jp/
Lifetime e-mail: kosuke@stanfordalumni.org