[governance] NTIA statement on IP addressing - broadly supportive of RIRs

[Avri Doria]

On 5 Dec 2012, at 01:11, John Curran wrote:

> On Dec 4, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> And I would think it good it this particular model was reviewed for something more fitting to the current realties and needs.  This is no longer 1993 or the age of RFC 1518.
> 
> Agreed. Presently, we're up to about 1996, i.e. age of RFC 2050,
> and specifically with respect to ARIN, we allow transfers to 
> recipients within the ARIN region, as well as to recipients 
> who are in another region.  Transfer policy does reflect the 
> "documented need" principles expressed in RFC2050:
> 
> "7.  The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be
>     approved by the regional registries.  The party trying to obtain
>     the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were
>     requesting an IP address directly from the IR."


Indeed, but this is still based on the CIDR as the prevailing reason for the allocation guidelines.

It is not the guideline, so much, that I am questioning, but the prevailing reason that establishes the criteria discussed in those guidelines.  If the demands of a hierarchical routing structure no longer hold in today's de-facto flattened routing architecture, then perhaps the reason behind the guidelines needs review and possible revision.  We need policies and guidelines that reflect current realties. I question whether that is currently the case.

> 
> I don't know whether this approach is good or bad, but do know
> that it has received extensive discussion both online and in 
> many of ARIN's public policy meetings, and in the end was deemed
> to be supported by the community.  Discussions subsequent to the
> ARIN's original transfer policy have enjoyed even more participation 
> from those in the legacy community and emerging address broker 
> community, with the result being changes to consider longer need-
> assessment horizons (and therefor supporting transfer of larger 
> address blocks) as well as the change to allow Inter-RIR transfers.
> 
> While I won't judge the resulting policy, I will say that the 
> overall multistakeholder policy development process seems to 
> working fairly well with respect to discussions of incremental
> change.  I harbor a concern that incremental change may be the
> only type of change that open multistakeholder deliberations 
> can actually support, as the discussions of more revolutionary 
> changes seem to inevitably jump to more authoritarian questions
> such as "who is charge", "who can approve this", etc.  This is 
> a topic worth thinking about in general about MS governance 
> processes.

I very much agree with an evolutionary approach to Internet architectural change.  And while this is not the place to get into it, I would contend that the primary reason some of the major changes some are attempting to make in the network aren't as effective as some would hope, was that   evolutionary approaches were not well enough studied, understood or implemented.  I think as Internet architects a lot can be learned from evolutionary theory.

But getting back to the point. The problem rests not with the NTIA, but with us as the stakeholders.  And on that, I think we agree.

avri



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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