Re: [sig-policy] Some observations on the differences in the various transfer policy proposals

[Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>]

On 21/10/2008, at 4:29 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> I understand your position there, but you haven't answered my  
> question: who/what do you think is in a better position than the  
> RIRs to do so?


I think you are saying "I want you to show me your concept of The  
Complete Solution."

I am saying "In my view the registry function in and of itself is  
incapable of carrying the load of The Complete Solution, whatever that  
may be - if you overload the registry with contrived constraints on  
how one can make changes in the registry you simply motivate the  
creation of alternate registries, and then rather than having a  
valuable and useful registry for the IPv4 Internet you have, well,  
fatal confusion. There are many good and compelling reasons to get  
over this IPv4 exhaustion thing and deploy IPv6, but I'm personally  
not keen on an approach that includes destruction of the integrity of  
the entire address registry structure as a major milestone."

It should be pretty clear that your question was not a question I was  
addressing. I'm not even sure that I can - when you look at the  
extraordinary breath of the global Internet industry, the massive  
diversity and size of the interests that are bought to bear on it, the  
diverse motivations and perceptions of value, the range of  
stakeholders and the manner of their interaction and the evolving  
roles and responsibility of regulatory measures in this environment,  
its pretty clear that we are within a rather complex system. I  
personally would be very skeptical of any claim of complete  
understanding of this environment, but maybe thats just me!

At which point I've already gone past acceptable levels of brevity in  
mail, and way past my personal quota of posts -  my sincere apologies  
for this.

    Geoff

    Disclaimer: Who am I? Oh right, I'm me! And thats who I'm  
speaking for!