[afnog] Fwd: Re: [governance] distributing address allocation authority to nationalgovts?

[Adiel A. Akplogan]

Hello everybody,

Find bellow a message that I found very interesting. I share
his points at 100% and will like all us to take it in account
in this debate.

I will add that, we are in a critical phase of Internet development
and expansion especially in our continent. IMHO 2005 and the coming
years will really change the face of Internet with the collapse of
many International monopoly. It is time for us as Internet professionals
and users as a community to express our point.

Internet is a cooperative network and its success come from there and
that will be the case for some time again. But let us point out what
is really wrong, which is not working well and try to find global
solution based on consensus as its was always the case up to now.

Cheers.

 >>>> Start forwarded maeesage <<<<<<<<<<<

>Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:25:49 -0300
>To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>From: Raúl Echeberría <raul at lacnic.net>
>Subject: Re: [governance] distributing address allocation authority to
>         nationalgovts?
>
>
>Milton et al.
>
>While I think that focusing in this specific issue is not productive for 
>the purpose of the governance-caucus contribution to the WGIG work, I 
>can't avoid to share with you some personal reflections on this issue.
>
>1) IMHO, instead of discussing new structures or new ways to allocate IP 
>addresses,  we should analyze and discuss what are the current problems 
>(if there are problems) and if they can or can not be solved within the 
>current system's framework. Maybe, after that we can conclude that the 
>current system, based in the existence of the regional registries, needs 
>changes, but it is something that we can or can not conclude, only after 
>identifying the possible problems and clearly not before.
>I think that Mr. Zhao's paper  is not enough clear regarding which problem 
>is trying to solve.
>
>
>2) Some concepts related with competition in a commercial market can not 
>be applied without any specific consideration to the kind of resources or 
>the kind of markets that we are talking about.
>While it is true that usually competitions produce lower prices, there is 
>not any evidence that the prices of the RIR's memberships is a problem for 
>accessing to IP addresses. Neither there are any evidence that in case 
>that it would be a problem, it could not be solved in the current RIRs 
>system framework. The membership fees are currently approved by the RIR's 
>membership and they are usually revised both, by the RIR's staff and the 
>RIR's membership. The members belong to the region, and therefore they 
>should take decisions responsibly based in their own interests.
>
>
>3) Some times this issue is supposedly addressed from a developing 
>countries' perspective. I belong to a developing region then I can speak 
>with certain authority from that perspective. I can say that the existence 
>of LACNIC has produced significant benefits in our region. The rate of IP 
>allocations in LAC regions has increased each of the last 3 years. ( I can 
>provide specific data if somebody want it). There is not any country 
>suffering the lack of IP addresses, some of countries which represent the 
>smallest Internet markets are those which are growing more. In fact, the 
>kind of trainings that we organize in developing countries like Haiti, 
>have a high impact in the increase of the IP allocations in those countries.
>
>4) In LAC, the Regional Internet Registry, LACNIC, is the main promoter of 
>IPv6 adoption. LACNIC has created the IPv6 Task Force and the IPv6 
>Latinamerican Forum. LACNIC community has developed more appropriated 
>policies for our region and the allocation of IPv6 is bein donde without 
>any associated  cost until new decision as a way to, as I already said, 
>promote the IPv6 deployment in our region. Then, it is clear that the 
>prices argument doesn't apply, at least in LAC region.
>
>5) one of my concerns regarding the competition system proposed is that it 
>is supposed that the allocation policies in each region have to be based 
>in the community needs an interests. Each RIR policy development process 
>is supposed to be the best tool to develop policies based in those needs. 
>If somebody think that the PDP is not the right tool to achieve that, then 
>we should maybe discuss any possible concern and why not, improve the PDP, 
>but if there are two or more allocation systems, then we will have two or 
>more set of policies. If both set of policies are based in the community 
>needs, then the policies will be the same, and then there is not 
>justification to have two paralel systems.
>If the policies are different, then we will be promoting the existence of 
>a shopping regarding IP addresses and it clearly not the most responsible 
>way to administer the Internet Resources. The current PDP are open for the 
>participation of anyone, transparent, publicly archived and neutral since 
>the RIR's staff members don't participate in the process.
>Could we ensure that if there are other paralel systems, they will have 
>the same characteristics ?
>
>
>6) The "country based"  model would be supposedly better for the national 
>interests, but the networks have the bud habit of not respecting national 
>boundaries, then who can say that the IP addresses that were supposedly 
>allocated to a given country will not be used in other and producing 
>benefits in that other country ?.
>Maybe some govs. can decide that some IP addresses can be used only inside 
>of the country (there are some antecedents of this kind of decisions) in 
>order to preserve their right over those IP addresses but, .....  would it 
>be a good idea? I think no.
>
>
>
>
>Raul.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance