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

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Process is important and any chef will tell you "the order in which you blend ingrediants is as important as the ingrediants". We are lacking self restraint when we are doing what ICANN is doing. Now as far as speech goes, prior restraint is bad, but as to guidance and allowance restraint is good. 
  The GA now lacks process. By choice. It now bares only the weight each rationale is entitled to. ICANN lacks process so each manuever is weighed seperately as though it were weightless. 
  The only weights ICANN has now are Staying power and being the bastard stepson of the USA gov.
  Hopefully the LSE report will assist in establishing some process to the GNSO including reprocessing of the GA. 
   
  e
   
   
   
  

kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  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" 
To: "Thomas Narten" 
Cc: "Martin Hannigan" ; "General Assembly of the DNSO"

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
>
>



 		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.