Re: New draft of NIR criteria document

["Arano, Takashi" <takashi@arano.jp>]

Yes, you are right. There may be some cases LIRs would like to
go directly to APNIC. Maybe we should not stop them doing.

Let me try to rephase Kosuke's question. I am not 100% sure what
his intention is, though.

As far as I believe, current implicit consensus and practices
between APNIC and NIRs are
- APNIC delegates IP number management in a country to corresponding NIR,
- it's almost exclusive, but not completely exclusive.
- that is, LIR can choose APNIC as well as NIR.
- but APNIC always suggests such LIR to go back to the NIR once and
    finally accepts and processes their requests.

If the case, the questions are
1) does the draft intend to change these current practices?
2) why, if so?

Regards,
Takashi Arano

At 07:01 02/08/20, Shuang Zhu wrote:
>Dear Kosuke Ito,
>
>It has been noticed that one important effort in global and regional
>address space management is "Aggregation", Provider Aggregation.
>
>ISPs, especially nation-wide large ISPs with International connections,
>do have the responsility to understand global and regional (AP) policies
>and procedures directly and thoroughly. In this way, extra
>administrative layer is unnecessary and gives less contribution to that.
>It's natural and more likely for them to join APNIC.
>
>In my opinion, it becomes explicitly historical and impossible that some
>NIRs could have the exclusive rights of controlling IP address
>resources.
>
>best regards,
>
>Shuang Zhu
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kosuke Ito" <kosuke@bugest.net>
>To: "Geoff Huston" <gih@telstra.net>
>Cc: <nir-discuss@apnic.net>
>Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 7:49 PM
>Subject: Re: New draft of NIR criteria document
>
>
> > 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
> >