[apnic-talk] Re: [ifwp] RE: [IFWP] Re: The Board
Jim and all,
Jim Dixon wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 1998, mueller wrote:
>
> > > What is somewhat blurry here is how we get accountability out of this (Council)
> > > structure.
> > > >snip<
> > > However, it appears that the councils will be independent bodies. The
> > > IP address council will consist of RIPE, ARIN, and APNIC, possibly plus
> > > some other members providing user (ISP, business) input. These will not
> > > be part of the new corporation. So all of the normal tools of management
> > > are missing.
> >
> > I agree with you 100% here. This is what makes me uneasy about the bottom-up paradigm, despite
> > its philosophical appeal. The existing Internet resource owners I think are putting one over on
> > the rest of the world by seeking to structure the Neworg in a way that ratifies their existing
> > control and insulates themselves from direct control of the Board.
>
> At least some of the concern expressed by the regional IP address space
> registries (RIRs) is justifiable. The RIRs, RIPE in particular, do an
> excellent job of allocating a valuable resource in a neutral way. The
> problem is that the proposed structures, presented as just a continuation
> of the way things are done now, actually represent a major change.
Change from the regional IP registries is very necessary and the sooner the better.
The reasons have been pointed out over and over again, so I won't rehash them all
over again. It is one of several reasons why the White Paper was drafted as well.
>
>
> At this point IANA has a clear oversight function. It allocates address
> space (note that it does not transfer any sort of ownership of address
> space) to the RIRs and sets down clear policies on how that address
> space is to be managed.
According the the IANA this statement is not true Jim. The IANA claims that
the Regional IP address space registries manage the IP space in accordance with
their own policies. ARIN for instance is a good example.
> Although there are no legal sanctions involved,
> none of the RIRs would dare to break IANA's rules.
What rules? Where are they posted?
> The entire system
> runs on trust, and if they violated that trust they would lose all
> credibility.
ARIN is already under some question as to their creditability and from some
information from australia APNIC seems to have developed a creditability
problem as well in some sectors.
>
>
> In the proposed new structure the councils report to themselves; the
> role of the Board is minimised.
How can there be oversight when councils report to themselves? What Proposal
are you referring to? Where is this proposal posted? Has there been a consensus
vote at either Reston or Geneva on this proposal?
> Relationships of trust are replaced
> by legal relationships, relationships in which the councils have
> power but no responsibility and the Board has responsibility but
> little power. This is a fundamental change and not a healthy one.
As has been repeated over and over again Jim, Power flows from the
Bottom-up as is required from the White Paper.
>
>
> > > Exactly what could the Board do if one of the regional IP address
> > > registries began selling large blocks of address space to the highest
> > > bidder? I haven't heard the slightest suggestion that the Board would
> > > have any power to curb this activity.
> >
> > More fundamentally, how do the Regional IP registries GET their blocks of
> > address space? Who
> > owns them?
>
> The same way that they do now. No one owns address space. Like much
> of the rest of the Internet, routing relies upon cooperation.
The cooperation model has broken down Jim. You know this or we wouldn't
be having conferences to rectify the problems and concerns.
> We advertise only the address blocks that have been allocated to us,
> not because we are contractually obliged to do so but because if
> people didn't behave like this the Internet would collapse.
THis statement is not necessarily true Jim. You already know this. Come on now!
>
>
> > In my opinion ownership of these resources must be clearly vested in
> > Neworg. Neworg
> > must have the right to create new methods of distributing IP addresses as technology evolves
> > and the topology of the Internet changes.
>
> This doesn't actually require any notion of ownership of address space.
> IANA does not OWN address space; it coordinates its use.
It is true that the IANA does not own address space. That is owned by
those that have address space allocated. The IANA has not done a very good
job in the past few years in managing address space. This is well known.
>
>
> If IANA didn't exist, the ISPs would create their own agency to coordinate
> the use of address space, and I suspect that it would wind up looking very
> similar to IANA as it is now.
Well Jim, this is very wishful thinking. >;)
>
>
> > At Reston, Karl Auerbach made the excellent point
> > that the justification of the current regional approach to IP address registries depends
> > entirely on the physical layout of transoceanic telecommunication facilities. In the future,
> > there may be some more rational way to organize the distribution of IP addresses. There may be
> > no need for regional registries at all.
>
> Much as I respect Karl's views, I think that he is incorrect.
>
> The Internet needs more diversity, not less. Or to put it another way,
> Europeans as a group would not be at all happy at having to get address
> space from complacent American bureaucrats who think that France, for
> example, is somewhere a bit beyond New York.
>
> --
> Jim Dixon Managing Director
> VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Member of Council Telecommunications Director
> Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
> http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
> tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
> username=ifwp password=ifwp
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp at lists dot interactivehq dot org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy at interactivehq dot org or call 202-408-0008
>
> ___END____________________________________________
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net *