<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<div style="color: black;">
<div style="color: black;">
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Redistribution, mostly to
cronies, is how mugabe managed things - with the result that Zimbabwe is
now a basket case. So yes the colonial analogy is sadly relevant. <br>
</p>
</div>
<div style="color: black;">
<p
style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; margin: 10pt 0;">On
28 October 2014 11:55:47 am Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com> wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_quote"
style="margin: 0 0 0 0.75ex; border-left: 1px solid #808080; padding-left: 0.75ex;"><div
dir="ltr">In-line response.<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div
class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:12 AM, David Conrad <span
dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:drc@virtualized.org"
target="_blank">drc@virtualized.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Guru,<br>
<span class=""><br>
On Oct 27, 2014, at 12:48 AM, Guru Acharya <<a
href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com">gurcharya@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Please take the reply in context of the fact that I do not support
Proposal 98 - it is unarguably flawed; I am only trying to highlight the
concerns that India may have taken into account.<br>
<br>
</span>Understood.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> I understand that current allocation is as per "need" (in
contrast to equity between sub-regions). However, the allocation is also
"first-come-first-serve" in addition to "need".<br>
</span>> ...<br>
<span class=""><br>
> IPv6 is a distant dream that will overcome the artificial scarcity and
will understandably resolve the current situation. Im talking about IPv4.<br>
<br>
</span>The scarcity of IPv4 address is _not_ artificial. It is simply a
fact. As such the verb tense you used was wrong: the allocation _was_
"first-come-first-serve".<br>
<br>
If I understand correctly, the implication of Proposal 98 is that the
government of India wants to (a) strip IPv4 addresses from current
registrants and/or (b) "redistribute" the remaining pool of IPv4
addresses, mostly held by AfriNIC (other RIRs have some address space left,
but AfriNIC has, by far, the largest remaining pool) in a more
"fair" (to whom?) fashion.<br>
<br>
If viewed in the worst possible light, one could argue (a) is theft and (b)
is reminiscent of past colonialist behavior with respect to resources on
the continent of Africa.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>[Guru]: I like how you brought
colonialism of Africa into this. I don't think India wants to plunder
Africa as you suggest. You're limiting your thinking to the resources
that are left in the IPv4 resource pool, while India may possibly be
thinking of redistribution of resources that have already been allocated.
In that sense, in your paradigm of colonialism, let me argue that India
wants inhuman colonialists and plunderers like the Europeans and Americans
to return the plundered resources back to the innocent folks of Africa and
Asia.</div><div><br></div><div>Now did you really want to bring in the
colonialism paradigm into the simple explanation of India's
concerns?</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Neither of these seem either tenable or appropriate. As such, I have to
wonder what exactly the point of Proposal 98 actually is.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> [Guru]: I agree that representatives on the APNIC EC do not represent
their nations but an Indian will unarguably have a better understanding of
the requirements/problems of domestic private players from India. Further,
who will represent the people who are yet to connect to the internet (many
such from India) if representation is limited to current resource holders?<br>
<br>
</span>There is a misunderstanding the role of APNIC's EC here. They do
not make policy or represent anyone other than themselves. They ensure
policy developed via the bottom-up community processes has followed the
APNIC policy development process.<br>
<span class=""><br></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>[Guru]: Thats an
incorrect representation of the work done by the APNIC EC. Please read the
list of functions performed by the APNIC EC here:</div><div><a
href="http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/organization/structure/apnic-executive-council/EC-roles-and-obligations">http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/organization/structure/apnic-executive-council/EC-roles-and-obligations</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Further,
there are many issues like the IANA transition that fall outside the scope
of the Policy SIG. For example, the APNIC EC was seen to have pushed its
proposal (prepared by the EC and secretariat) for the IANA transition
during APNIC38 in a top-down fashion. Are you really suggesting the APNIC
EC has no role to play here as
well?</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
class="">
> [Guru]: Agreed. I agree that "redistribution" sounds rather
drastic. Please take it to mean any instrument that you deem fit for fixing
the present institutional arrangement.<br>
<br>
</span>I'm not sure changing the terminology has much of an impact.
Given the exhaustion of the IPv4 free pool, the 'instrument' is
either some global version of "eminent domain" or markets,
neither of which will address the fundamental underlying problem: 32 bits
simply can not meet the global demand. Even in a world where one can
renumber the entire Internet, you still have the problem that there are far
more devices than can be address by 32 bits _now_, much less in the future.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>[Guru]: Ok. Then lets stick to
"redistribution" as the appropriate
"instrument".</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Regards,<br>
-drc<br>
(ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself. Really.)<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>