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

[Sivasubramanian M]

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.

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/abf1a123/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