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

[Daniel Kalchev]

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/20111024/3850b89d/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