[governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again...

[Sivasubramanian M]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Daniel Kalchev,
>
> Cost would be a lesser consideration for the ISPs and bulk IP users in a
> situation where an imaginary NIR in an imaginary country operates with
> policies that makes it difficult for some users to obtain IP addresses - a
> situation wherein a class of users are denied or delayed the allocation of
> IP addresses for reasons other than monetary reasons.
>
> The idea of alternate sources for IP addresses is to ensure that IP address
> allocation does not get blocked by for any reason for those users who have a
> need for IP addresses. In actual practice, the NIR may operate so well with
> such fair practices that most of the bulk users and ISPs wouldn't have any
> reason to choose the alternate source ( RIR ).
>
> About the NIR's participation in the RIR's costs, I am sure that the NIRs
> may agree on some form of NIR fee payable to the RIRs which would indeed
> translate to a minuscule cost per IP address, which could be balanced by
> charging a minimal fee for the addresses allotted.
>
> Even with the provision to allow (without any bottlenecks) allocations
> direct by the RIRs, it is important to ensure that the NIRs will be on a
> truly multi-stakeholder model, that too with symbolic Government
> participation and non-ISP business participation.
>

( I meant including non-ISP participation, i.e. business participation by
way of ISPs + non-ISPs )

>
> Sivasubramanian M


Sivasubramanian M

>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 08:00 , Sivasubramanian M wrote:
>>
>> However, the proposed NIR may still have to leave the option to obtain IP
>> address blocks direct from RIRs with complete freedom for the ISPs to do so.
>>
>>
>> One possible reason to introduce NIR would be to reduce costs to local
>> parties, such as ISPs and large IP address space users. However, this also
>> means that this will disrupt the business model of the RIRs and therefore
>> will require significant participation on part of the NIR in the RIR costs.
>> This scheme assumes the costs for the local users are significantly lower
>> when going via the NIR.
>>
>> When you have both direct and via NIR allocations from the RIR, the
>> question may arise: who will bear the costs of the NIR existence. If you can
>> sort that out then without doubt such scheme may be useful. The RIR will
>> have to agree too…
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111024/13cb2e21/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t