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

[Paul Wilson]

Dear friends,

I can clarify a few questions which have been raised in this discussion about national registries and IP address allocations...

1. The National Internet Registry (NIR) structure is well-established within the APNIC system, and new NIRs can be accepted under a set of documented criteria which have been established by the community.

2. An Indian NIR is in formation under the auspices of NIXI, the National Internet eXchange of India (under the Indian Department of Information Technology, DIT), which has received in-principle approval from APNIC.  Operational readiness is under development and hopefully will be achieved soon.

3. Under the APNIC policies (decided by the APNIC community) an NIR does not have exclusivity within its country or economy.  Both APNIC and the NIR agree to uphold the free choice of network operators as to their preferred source of address resources, and naturally, NIXI has agreed to abide by this policy.

4. Establishment of an NIR does not imply independence of address management policies, as all NIRs agree to abide by the regional policies established by the APNIC community.

5. Establishment of an NIR also does not imply that a national address allocation exists or can be made.  On the contrary, address blocks allocated by an NIR are taken from the regional address pool which is held by APNIC.

6. There is currently a policy proposal in the APNIC community for IPv6 address allocations to be made to individual countries, which has been submitted by the Indian Department of Telecommunications (DoT).  However this is entirely independent from the process and the issues of NIR formation, and is likely to be an ongoing discussion.  More information is available from http://www.apnic.net, here:

   http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100


I hope this is useful.

Regards,

________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 3100




On 24/10/2011, at 11:30 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 
> ( I meant including non-ISP participation, i.e. business participation by way of ISPs + non-ISPs ) 
> 
> Sivasubramanian M
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 

________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 3100

____________________________________________________________
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