On Aug 18, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
I came across a response to Mr. Vixie's article and thought it might be of interest to the APNIC community, particularly as it mentions pending IPv4 legacy address sales to Asian customers. Mike -
I attempted to correct the factual errors in the article you reference but to no
avail, so have since posted a reply to the original IGP blog (attached below)
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
---
More factually challenged coverage of ARIN by Mr. Mueller...
Apologies for the significant but unavoidable delay in responding to this blog entry. Coverage in the IGP blog of Mr. Vixie's article was quite expected (as it is important information for the community) but I had hoped that Mr. Mueller
might correct the blog entry if I sent him the issues in private. Alas, the IGP blog doesn't subscribe to typical journalistic nor academic standards, so I will now set the record straight directly.
Mr. Mueller's asserts that "ARIN is worried", "ARIN is nervous", and that ARIN is trying to protect its position in the current Internet number registry system; all of these assertions are false. While Mr. Vixie was Chair of ARIN in 2010, his byline on the article in question is simply ""by Paul Vixie | July 20, 2011". Mr. Mueller was apparently confused by the biographical information which followed the article. Mr. Vixie is an ARIN Board member. ARIN Board members are free to speak their views on Internet registry topics, but that does not imply consideration by the full board nor make it the views a position of ARIN. In fact, regarding this particular topic, ARIN does have a position on record which is contained our 2 March 2011 letter to ICANN - http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/curran-to-beckstrom-02mar11-en.pdf, which makes plain that we are quite comfortable with discussion of the structure of the Internet number registry system: "Despite ARIN’s appropriate rejection of the Depository request, I would ask that ICANN carefully review the Depository correspondence and consider the issues it raises with respect to the evolution of the Internet number registry system. While ARIN and the other Regional Internet Registries are obligated to follow the framework agreed to in ICP-2 and related guidelines such as the IETF’s RFC 2050, the structure of the Internet number registry system is substantially unchanged since inception. This stability in design is certainly a valued feature given the instrumental role of the Internet number registry system in reliable Internet operations, but may not be the optimum structure in light of the many changes taking place in the Internet today (including IPv4 depletion & IPv6 transition, internationalization of Internet multi-stakeholder oversight, and ongoing developments in cyber security.) ARIN would welcome an opportunity to participate in any and all discussions regarding how to best evolve the Internet number registry system, and would consider ICANN instrumental in leading such discussions in forums globally as appropriate." Mr. Mueller was fully aware of this position (but sought not to include it in his "analysis") as I discussed it in detail on the very panel he moderated on this topic at the GIGNET conference just a few months ago. ARIN is quite willing to evolve as long as there is global multi-stakeholder discussion of the changes, and a result that reflects the public interest in this area. Apologies for length but necessary, as Mr. Mueller's selective coverage does a disservice to those who want facts in order to seriously follow developments in Internet Governance. Thank you, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
|