[governance] For you as an Internet user what is a "CriticalInternet resource"?

[Karl Auerbach]

McTim wrote:

  I do understand route aggregation, I just don't understand what the
> IGF has to do with it.

IGF can, and perhaps ought to, have a lot to do with it.

In the area of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses there is a tension between some 
rather tough technical issues and some equally tough economic/social issues:

On one hand we have the technical issues of squeezing routing tables 
into routers and disseminating the routing updates faster than the rate 
at which the net topology and connectivity changes (due to failures, 
maintenance, congestion, etc).

On the other hand we have the demand for stable addresses and provider 
independent addresses:  Stable addresses are desired because, despite 
assertions to the contrary, few organizations find the task of 
renumbering addresses to be pleasant or foolproof.  And provider 
independent addresses are desired to support multiple provider 
attachments to the net because single attachments, whether due to 
traffic loading, reliability demands, or the increasing imposition by 
providers on traffic flows, are being perceived as increasingly fragile.

The interplay of these issues will only increase with the deployment of 
mobile devices - mobile IP tending to be more consumptive of addresses 
than stationary IP - and with the increasing deployment of packet 
transport quality sensitive applications such as VoIP and IP/TV 
(registered trademark of Cisco).

ICANN has effectively abandoned this field.  Yes, there is an Address 
Supporting Orgnization, but if one measures its life by the amount of 
activity, it lacks any vital signs.

The RIRs, filling the policy vacuum left by ICANN, have done a pretty 
good job of trying to fill the gap.  In many regards the RIRs provide a 
mirror showing us that where ICANN has gone awry the RIRs have done it 
right.

But the RIRs, even though nominally open to the outside, tend to be more 
the focus of provider and router vendor viewpoints than the opinion of 
end users.  Yes, there are users present who articulate their needs, but 
in the main they are not the strongest voices, and they tend to be 
people who tend to have a strong sympathy to the provider concerns.

The IGF has a role in at least twi regards:

   1. Filling the vacuum at the global level that ICANN has created by 
its withdrawal from the field.  (In these matters it is important to 
distinguish ICANN from IANA.  The IANA folks, who should always be 
distinguished from ICANN, are still probably the best instrumentality 
and kernel around which to structure a global IP address policy.)

   2. Assisting the RIRs become more synoptic.  I don't know how that 
ought to be done except that it ought to be an addition to, not a 
replacement for, the current RIR processes.

			--karl--


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance