Re: [ga] IP address policy - looking past the RIRs...

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What about that? This is a reasonable proposal. Which board member here will
bring up this concern in one of the board meetings?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Thomas Narten" <narten@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "General Assembly of the DNSO"
<ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 4:31 AM
Subject: [ga] IP address policy - looking past the RIRs...


> A day or two ago you asked a really important question:
>
> > Are you implying that this policy is not good for internet users?
> > I.e., they do not benefit? If so, please provide specifics. (I really
> > am interested in this topic). I also believe that this policy has
> > pretty much no direct effect on end users. Even the indirect effects
> > are very limited.
>
> My concern about IP address policy, whether v4 or v6, is not that what
> has been done so far is misdirected.  Quite the contrary, I think it's a
> pretty good first step.  But first steps require second, and third, and
> fourth steps, etc.  And once we begin walking we really ought to know,
> at least in general terms, where we want to end up.
>
> ICANN's address policies can be summed up as "When a RIRs asks, grant."
>   Now I know that is over simplistic and is, in fact, unfair.
>
> But it serves to illustrate the basic presumptions of the existing
> policies - when the RIR's need address space, ICANN requires of them
> little more than a rationale and a plan.  But ICANN's policies lack
> guidance about how to evaluate whether those rationales and plans are
> benefiting those whom ICANN is supposed to protect, the community of
> internet users (which includes ISPs as well as end users and address
> consuming businesses.)
>
> The RIRs have bent over backwards to try to hear the needs of end users
> who are not ISPs - for example, there have been a lot of midnight pixels
> burned over when, how, if, over provider independent addresses so that
> businesses can multi-home.
>
> What I am looking for is something like this: That ICANN require the
> RIRs to demonstrate that they have followed a process that forces them
> to articulate and weigh the needs of those who don't show up at ARIN or
> RIPE or APNIC or whatever.  This is a lot like the way that
> environmental impact reports work - not that the result is dictated but
> rather that a process is to be followed to ensure that those interests
> that are not normally articulated will, in fact, be articulated, and
> weighed using clear methods and in accord with clear principles.
>
> To do this ICANN needs to formulate IP address policies in terms of
> desired goals - perhaps somewhat vague goals - like balancing the needs
> of end users for public address space against the needs of providers to
> keep routing tables reasonably sized and to propagate routing updates
> reasonably quickly.
>
> (At an earlier time I might have suggested policies to prevent the
> growth of NATs.  At least with regard to IPv4 that's probably a lost
> cause.  But perhaps it's a reasonable policy goal for IPv6, particularly
> if we consider that once people have become used to IPv4 private spaces
> they might easily use IPv6 private spaces even though, if the policies
> were right, that it isn't really necessary for them to do so.)
>
> And to do this ICANN needs to articulate who are the intended
> beneficiaries of the address policies - the ISPs, the RIRs, end users?
>
> --karl--
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.4/448 - Release Date: 9/14/06
>
>