[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [aso-policy] Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries
Dear Michael,
I suppose this situation you describe both results from the lack of
understanding of the importance of the involved issues by the @large
members and the perfect understanding by some of those thinking
having an industrial interest in managing them to their own benefit.
I believe that to the contrary, the important of the IP addressing
plan makes of the best interest of every concerned parties that the
largest number of stakeholders may contribute. As an active @large
member from France, I certainly desire to see @large people to
become more involved in these matters.
I am interested to know if you are an experience person in this and
if you have an establish doctrine we might support. My own opinion
is that the priority is for common people to clearly understand what
is at stake, to study the impact in their own field and to jointly
develop a working protocol to make an inventory of their requests so
operations, technology, every industry, privacy, media convergences,
administrative, political and legal, etc.. points of views may be considered
otherwise the impacts and the costs of the patches in the coming
decades and centuries will be dramatic.
This call for comments is obviously sent to all the @large Members
of this list. I will take an example: I would be interested in comments
about the impact and the cost of the recent ARIN suggestion about
CNAMES.
Some paragraphs in the proposed document for new RIRs seem
to lead to very important changes in the Internet management
which IMHO should be publicly debated in the press? Please
correct me if I am wrong.
Jefsey Morfin
France@large
At 15:05 29/10/00, you wrote:
>Mr. Morfin-
>You wrote:
> > I am surprised to receive this mail while I am registered on this list
> > for some time. I though I missregistered.
>There have been other postings, although not many.
>
> > From your experience, is there some discussion going on (I do not
> > even talk about a bottom up process)?
>Very little. Mostly announcements, of the sort that my recent post
>was a response to. I believe that all the real discussion has taken
>place within the hierarchies of the already-established RIRs.
>
>There was a posting by Mark McFadden, on October 2, relating to the
>lack of open process. Here is part of what Mr. McFadden wrote:
>
>"I certainly salute the efforts of the AC for getting together in
>Brisbane. What concerns me is my inability to convince the AC
>members
>at ARIN (at the ARIN meeting this week) that there should be a
>broader public process in the development of address policy."
>
>So far as I am concerned, there has been no open process at all.
>Naturally, the people who control the allocation of IP addresses
>have no interest in allowing the public to become aware of
>addressing policy, as they would then have to reveal their criteria
>(or lack of criteria) for doing it, and could be called to account
>for the partiality undoubtedly employed by them. And of course these
>are the same people who dominate the IETF, the root servers, ISOC,
>IPV6 implementation, and all the rest.
>
> > I suppose they had some
> > election process to the BoD?
>I'm not sure what you mean here. What BoD?
>
> > I thank you for your response: I just
> > want first to check if my mail system works correctly, or if I registered
> > on the proper ASO list.
>This is supposed to be the official discussion list for the ASO of
>ICANN. I guess the RIR in-group had to have a list so as to appear
>open and above-board, even if all policy decisions are being made in
>camera.
>
>Michael Sondow
>============================================================
>International Congress of Independent Internet Users (ICIIU)
> http://www.iciiu.org iciiu@iciiu.org
>============================================================
* on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org *