Re: [aso-policy] Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries

[Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>]

Mr. Morfin-

You wrote:

> 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.

There is a knowledge gap. And it is not easy for those who have been
the purveyors of the knowledge to share it with others.

> 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.

It is important for that to happen. I think that the new @large
directors, if they are made aware of the ASO proposals and
discussion, will help to bring @large members into it. But they must
first be made aware of the need for their intervention and for the
broadening of this process.

> I am interested to know if you are an experience person in this and
> if you have an establish doctrine we might support. 

I am not an experienced person in the realm of IP address
allocation. I do know that the present system, if it can be called
that, is the historical outgrowth of allocation by fiat, and that
the present registries were created by a small core of those people
who created the Internet. I also know, from ISPs I have dealt with,
that the criteria and economics of address allocation have not been
decided through a representative process of those who use the
addresses, but by those with a seniority claim to that authority. It
seems clear, then, that the creation of new registries, at a time
when the Internet is growing up to its future role in the world,
needs to be done in a new and more inclusive fashion.

> 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.

Planning ahead, opening up to the feedback and influence of users,
and entering into a decision-making process based on multilateral
dialogue certainly do seem to make good sense.

> 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.

I'm sure that this and other issues would benefit immensely from a
broad dialogue.

> 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.

It may not be possible yet for the broader public that reads the
non-specialist press to appreciate the issues, but perhaps the
specialist Internet press could be usefully involved. At any rate,
there is now a broader-based community involved in the Internet
governance process, through the @large membership, and they
certainly should be given the opportunity to discuss the issues.

M. Sondow
*       on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy     *
*   To unsubscribe:  send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org  *