[governance] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated,

[tvest at eyeconomics.com]

Dear Mr. Bajwa,

Thanks for your reactions.
I have replied to a few points in line below.
Barring very unlikely developments, this will be my last potentially distracting word on this topic in this forum.

Regards, 

Tom Vest


On Jan 23, 2010, at 7:37 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:

> Hi Tom,
> 
> I appreciate your comments and directions as I respect everyone's
> comment and have keenly read them!
> 
> Most of this discussion was a spin-off from a piece of information I
> shared coming from the APNIC lists. Though the discussion has been
> very informative but what are being termed as assertions are still
> based on years of practical interactions and responses from the
> Internet community in our region and I would like to pause this
> discussion for the moment as it is distracting me a bit from the
> issues I am focused on at the moment though I will continue to read
> and follow discussions on the various APNIC lists.
> 
> I did very well understand what APNIC said as during the day we
> continued discussions and I also introduced more delegations to the
> APNIC staff so that issue at my end remains affirmative, please do not
> self assume the accuracy of my discussions and deliberations though I
> admit it is hard for anyone to stand in my shoes and understand that
> where I am coming from.
> 
> I am not currently engaged in hardcore academic activities and there
> is only one university from Pakistan that is actually a medical sector
> university so again universities aren't of much of the issue here and
> in our region universities do not lead multi-sector research and
> engagement with the industry as it happens in the developed regions. I
> do have links to the academia at my end as I serve on ICT decision
> committees/social enterprise development initiatives/technology
> incubation in various public universities in Pakistan and have taught
> at some during my 10 year teaching career but that again is a whole
> separate thing and has nothing to do with APNIC.

There are definitely some elements within this chain of associations that at this moment are, actively or potentially, *not* separate -- i.e., that are directly relevant to the sphere of activities that APNIC touches. 

[Note that what follows is in no way intended to be be an exhaustive list of real or potential associations between APNIC and Pakistan, or Pakistani institutions, or you personally; it's based solely on the factors that you mention in your comments above]

Pakistan is home to several universities, at least some of which operate IP networks.
The people involved in IP networking in those universities are, by definition, active or passive members of the community of interest that defines APNIC policies.

In many different kinds of institutions around the world, network design choices are made through variety of institutional processes. In many cases they involve a variety of different kinds of participants -- budgetary authorities, non-technical administrators, end user representatives, external consultants, oversight committees, etc., etc. It sounds like the committee(s) that you you serve might be just the kind of institutions that might, in some but not all circumstances, serve in one of these indirect participatory roles. That said, whether or not that kind of chain of relevant associations holds between the particular role(s) that you play within the those institutions, and also whether those institutions do or do not have that kind of relationship to university networking activities (or the activities of any other network-operating institution) are all contingent facts determined by your own local circumstances.

The bottom line is that many people whose circumstances would seem to be, broadly speaking, very much like your own, have all sorts of direct and indirect participatory roles in the APNIC policy making process. But even that is unnecessary, as there is no litmus test for "representative status." The APNIC process imposes no additional or arbitrary barriers on your personal involvement in the formulation and development of protocol number resource policies. 

Of course, neither does the APNIC process guarantee that you or any other individual will command any greater voice in the regional policy development process than is enjoyed by any other individual participant. Nor does APNIC have any say in determining whether any other work that you do is or is not deemed to be relevant to decision making about IP networks within your home territory or elsewhere. Nor does APNIC have role whatsoever in any other sphere of activities unrelated to the administration of protocol number resources, in Pakistan, Asia, or anywhere else. In effect, just as there is no "representative status" requirement for participation, neither does participation confer any special status or authority upon those who do participate. Structurally, every participant in the APNIC process is a "grassroots" participant. Functionally, participation is its own (and only) reward. 

We are communicating by email, and we seem to be understanding each other (here I'm merely assuming that I'm a more-or-less "typical" participant), so you have clearly demonstrated that you possess all of the prerequisites required to participate in the APNIC policy deliberation process. Nothing is standing in your way!


> I have been following the SIG and sorry to say you might not clearly
> understand non-commercial users or policy matters that they engage in.


Like you, I have also been following, and not infrequently actively participated in, explicitly self-identified non-commercial governance discussions for over a decade now. I believe that I am reasonably well informed about the policy matters discussed in such fora. My point is not that those matters are not important; however they only rarely encompass questions about the administration of protocol number resources -- which is APNIC's *sole* mandate. If your goal is to engage that particular subject, then once again there would seem to be no impediment to your doing do, either here, in the APNIC policy discussion list, or in innumerable other places. However, if your complaint is that APNIC is insufficiently attentive to the myriad other policy issues that are raised in non-commercial user discussions, then the problem is not that you are being excluded from or marginalized in the APNIC debate(s); the problem is that you are seeking to change the subject of those debates -- not only change them, but change them to focus on matters that are completely outside of the scope of APNIC's ambit. Under current circumstances (i.e., in the absence of a clear community-wide consensus in favor of such an shift), that is not going to happen, nor should it. 

> Also, it doesn't deal with grassroot stakeholder or again the user
> issues. The majority of APNIC members are the Private and Public
> Sector organizations and if you follow the universities, you will
> understand how many are public and private sector so again that
> argument may not hold validity here.



> The APNIC SIG does not serve that
> purpose though it might be a good starting point but I am not going to
> step into it at this point.
> 
> Some of my ambiguities continue to be un-answered from the
> non-commercial, simple user etc stakeholder perspective but that is
> okay as once again this is not my focus nor any of my colleagues that
> have responded belong my region and the ones that do haven't responded
> and also none of the people that practically experience the results of
> APNIC activities are present here which means the people say from
> Pakistan or India or Sri Lanka or Nepal etc that may actually be
> corresponding with APNIC.

The concerns you've expressed have given me an idea.
Like most Internet-related conferences, every year APRICOT's conference-specific website includes a list of individual registrants.
Some of these can be found online long after the conference ends, e.g., 

https://events.apricot.net/cgi-bin/reglist.pl?event_id=9

I believe that APNIC does something similar, but would have to investigate further. 

My thought is that individuals with concerns like those that you've expressed might find it useful to investigate those lists, e.g., to identify local contacts who might be able to provide additional information and helpful suggestions to other aspiring local participants in the regional policy development processes.   

Although those conference attendees would be under no external obligation to cooperate, I believe that the same might not be true of fellowship recipients, who are also generally identifiable long after the terms of their fellowship. I will inquire with the current members of the APRICOT Management Committee about the possibility of publishing this information in a more structured, systematic way, to facilitate such inquiries.

Regards,

Tom Vest

> Thank you to everyone once again that participated in this discussion
> even though it was a spin-off from just an information sharing
> message.
> 
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:29 AM,  <tvest at eyeconomics.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:51 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, I am taking notes on this and see how this works, my appreciation
>>> and recognition to and for everyone's comments in the end.
>>> 
>>> In my discussions with APNIC staff during the IGF2009, on my question
>>> of CS engagement I was referred to the membership page with costs.
>>> After being subscribed to APNIC lists for my region for half a decade
>>> and reading through the other announcement lists that I subscribe to,
>>> I fail to find the missing connection apart from commercial
>>> engagements and I know that funds most of the support to the APNIC
>>> organization, operations and structure. The scholarships/fellowships
>>> to APNIC activities/events/trainings are directed towards members and
>>> usually entertains just members because they financially support the
>>> process.
>> 
>> As a former co-chair of the APRICOT Fellowship Committee*, I can declare that this is an utterly baseless assertion.
>> 
>> First of all, the fellowships have always been oriented toward strengthening intra-regional operational know-how and technical coordination. Granted, this is consistent with APRICOT's institutional mandate -- but then APRICOT is not a membership organization, and does not play any role in the administration of Internet protocol resources.
>> 
>> Second, fellowship priorities have long been strongly biased in favor of less wealthy over wealthier, more industrially developed countries, *and also* in favor of smaller, less well-established regional network operators over larger, more well-funded institutions -- i.e., just about the opposite of what you claim. Again this is in keeping with the purposes for which the fellowship program was established.
>> 
>> Feel free to see for yourself:
>> 
>> http://meetings.apnic.net/29/going/fellowship
>> 
>> It is true that the fellowships are almost exclusively awarded to individuals with operational responsibilities in real, working networks -- i.e., the sort of people whose technical know-how and ability to manage network trouble substantially determines whether the Internet does or does not work in their home territories -- but that does not imply that all were, are, or will ever be APNIC members. APNIC membership is not a prerequisite for operating an Internet network.
>> 
>> *APRICOT is the annual regional engineering/operations-oriented conference, which has been collocated with every Spring APNIC Meeting since the mid-1990s. APRICOT has provided a fellowship program for at least as long. Beginning in about 2007 the fellowship program came to be jointly administered by APNIC and APRICOT. My own involvement in APRICOT began while I was working in Japan as regional manager for an international network. NOTE WELL: I currently play no role in APNIC or APRICOT, and speak only for myself.
>> 
>> 
>>> Isn't it odd that these administrative charges on not mentioned in
>>> detail? Misunderstandings arise from lack of key information in these
>>> cases.
>> 
>> What I find odd is that someone would undermine their own credibility in an important policy discussion by making strong assertions about empirical facts, apparently without making any attempt to verify them. Indeed, misunderstandings can arise in such circumstances; hopefully this clarification will help to reduce that possibility in this particular case.
>> 
>>> Once again, has anyone seen a list at APNIC on non-commercial user
>>> discussion?
>> 
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>> 
>> If you are unsure, feel free to look here for a *subset* of discussion participants:
>> 
>> http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/who-are-our-members
>> 
>> The most cursory review reveals that there are at least 30 universities among APNIC's membership.
>> No doubt the list includes many more institutions that would qualify as "non-commercial," if this distinction is important enough to you to justify a more thorough analysis. Alternately, you could simply start contributing to sig-policy list itself, since participation is *not* limited to APNIC members, or restricted in any other way.
>> 
>> Of course the discussion is focused on substance and merits of particular protocol number resource policies, so having some knowledge of whatever policy you wish to discuss is useful. Alternately, you are always free to submit an original policy proposal of your own.
>> 
>>> Please direct me to it as I would like to learn more about
>>> their process of non-commercial engagement that the APNIC staff failed
>>> to share.
>> 
>> Perhaps they misunderstood your question. Or perhaps you misunderstood the purpose of APNIC.
>> 
>> In any case, I hope that you will find these pointers useful in your future investigation and deliberation on these matters.
>> 
>> Tom Vest
>> 
>>> Thanking everyone who joined this discussion in advance.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 7:12 PM, George Sadowsky
>>> <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Fouad,
>>>> It's worth reading McTim's responses carefully.  In particular, there is
>>>> room in RIR space for anyone who wants to make responsible comments to
>>>> participate.  The RIRs are not closed organizations; they serve the ISPs of
>>>> the region by administering address allocations for the benefit of their
>>>> members, ISPs, and ultimately the users.  They do have administrative costs
>>>> that they must recover.  However, those costs, as they are distributed down
>>>> to the tail ISPs, are very minimal compared with almost all other costs
>>>> involved in being a part of the network (sometimes even including tea and
>>>> coffee  :-)  ).
>>>> One of the most important functions that lists like this can perform, as
>>>> well as meetings such as IGF, is to ensure that participants understand how
>>>> the current system works.  An accurate understanding of the current system
>>>> is really important for discussion to lead to useful progress.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> George
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> 
>>>> At 3:51 PM +0300 1/22/10, McTim wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Fouad,
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> That is actually a mis-perception. It costs to join APNIC and receive
>>>> number resources.
>>>> 
>>>> I labor under no misconception regarding how the RIRs operate.
>>>> 
>>>> I am am active member of several RIR mailing lists.  Today for example, I
>>>> have received a dozen or more mail from ARIN, RIPE and AfrINIC lists.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost
>>>> 
>>>> If you visit the APNIC frontpage at http://www.apnic.net, you will see
>>>> under the heading Internet Resources: How Much Does it Cost? and you
>>>> will see the structure they have. All ISPs and service providers in
>>>> the region have to buy their membership and then this trickles down to
>>>> the end-users as well.
>>>> 
>>>> Local Internet Registries should operate on a cost recovery basis, some do
>>>> and some inevitably make IP addresses a profit center.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Secondly there is no system for Civil Society
>>>> and Non-Commercial User engagement
>>>> 
>>>> This is where the misconception is entirely yours.  Anyone can join the
>>>> policy discussion lists and have an impact on Internet numbering resource
>>>> policy.  Currently, I do not represent any ISP or LIR, yet participate in
>>>> developing policies in multiple regions.  Really, the system is open to
>>>> anyone, technically minded or otherwise.  Milton's experience in the ARIN
>>>> region also prove this, as he has had a not insignificant impact on ARIN
>>>> policy making since he joined the list.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> , more or less, a structure coming
>>>> down from the parent number resource system.
>>>> 
>>>> Nope, completely bottom up.  Where do you get these false notions from?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Actually its sold to APNIC Members that charge quite a fees that in
>>>> most cases is far more than the amount of income for many in our part
>>>> of the world. Have a look at the Membership Charges of APNIC.
>>>> 
>>>> IP addresses are NOT sold.  You should read more completely:
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost
>>>> 
>>>> "APNIC does not sell Internet resources such as IP addresses.
>>>> 
>>>> Instead, resources holders are granted the right to use these public
>>>> resources. However, APNIC charges administration fees to assist in the
>>>> management of this resource and the provision of services it provides the
>>>> community."
>>>> 
>>>> I have tracked their fees for many years, and find their system to be very
>>>> fair.
>>>> 
>>>> What you must understand is that for an ISP that wants IP blocks, one does
>>>> not have to join a RIR to get them, they can simply get an assignment or
>>>> sub-allocation from their upstream provider.  For larger ISPs, the cost of
>>>> joining and getting an allocation is a tiny fraction of their monthly
>>>> revenue.  It's part of the cost of doing business, like serving tea to the
>>>> staff  (I know because the last ISP I worked for actually had a larger
>>>> tea/sugar/milk budget than for the AfriNIC fees).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The perception you shared is what is commonly shared amongst the
>>>> Internet community from the developed world.
>>>> 
>>>> This perception is also widely shared in the developing world.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Its not an apple pie for
>>>> us, really, we have some really tough problems here.
>>>> 
>>>> Believe me I know what those problems are and work on them daily here in
>>>> Africa.  The RIRs fees are NOT one of the problems.
>>>> 
>>>> Its not how critically we think but what resources we have access to
>>>> without Moolah (money) in between. The system is very vague indeed for
>>>> the people that see it from outside but from the inside, you pay, you
>>>> get.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Do you honestly think that adding another layer of bureaucracy would make
>>>> the system cheaper?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I rest my case.
>>>> 
>>>> I find no merit in your "case".
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> McTim
>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
>>>> indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Regards.
>>> --------------------------
>>> Fouad Bajwa
>>> Advisor & Researcher
>>> ICT4D & Internet Governance
>>> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
>>> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
>>> My Blog: Internet's Governance
>>> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>>> Follow my Tweets:
>>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>>> MAG Interview:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> Advisor & Researcher
> ICT4D & Internet Governance
> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
> My Blog: Internet's Governance
> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> Follow my Tweets:
> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
> MAG Interview:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA

____________________________________________________________
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

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