[governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management

Mon Oct 27 10:38:12 EDT 2014

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com> wrote:
> In-line reply. Marked with [Guru]:
>
> Please take the reply in context of the fact that I do not support Proposal
> 98 - it is unarguably flawed; I am only trying to highlight the concerns
> that India may have taken into account.

Understood.

>>
>
> [Guru]: I understand that current allocation is as per "need" (in contrast
> to equity between sub-regions). However, the allocation is also
> "first-come-first-serve" in addition to "need". Put together, the resource
> is allocated to whoever establishes "need on a first-come-first-serve"
> basis. As a result, India's late adoption of the Internet exposes it to an
> almost empty resource pool of IPv4 addresses.

It wasn't almost empty when India first got online.  Everyone is in
the same boat in
terms of constrained resources.  There is no "inequity" when everyone
suffers equally.  See below:

 Therefore, it is natural for
> India to question the existing institutional arrangement. Obviously those
> who have grand-fathered these resources will not suffer due to the
> first-come-first-serve allocation and therefore do not have the same reason
> to question the institutional arrangement as do late entrants.
>
> Note that I am not suggesting an alternate institutional arrangement to
> replace the existing one. Specifically, I am not suggesting fixed rations
> for sub-regions or nations as may invariably be introduced in many straw man
> arguments. I am only merely suggesting the reasons why some people may
> consider the current institution broken.
>
> IPv6 is a distant dream that will overcome the artificial scarcity and will
> understandably resolve the current situation. Im talking about IPv4. I agree
> that allocation of IPv4 may be spilt milk for some, but its not nice when
> others still have a full glass of milk in front of them just because they
> were born first.

But they have drunk their milk (resources are in use).  What you are
saying is analogous
to saying our grandparents and parents used up all of the fossil fuels
and it is unfair that we
are constrained  to use what is left!!

>
>>
>> >
>> > 2) APNIC Executive Council (EC) has remained largely static and arguably
>> > captured by the East Asians and Australians for almost a decade. In the
>> > APNIC EC elections, the votes allotted to members are in proportion of
>> > the
>> > IP addresses held by them. For example, if the IP holding is up to /22,
>> > the
>> > member has 2 votes; and if the IP holding is between /13 and /10, then
>> > the
>> > member has 32 votes.  Effectively, due to the current skewed allocation
>> > of
>> > IP addresses, representatives of India do not stand much of a chance in
>> > APNIC EC elections.
>>
>> People who run for the APNIC (or any RIR Board) do NOT represent their
>> nation state.  They do it to help the Internet develop in their region
>> and globally.
>>
>>
>
> [Guru]: I agree that representatives on the APNIC EC do not represent their
> nations but an Indian will unarguably have a better understanding of the
> requirements/problems of domestic private players from India. Further, who
> will represent the people who are yet to connect to the internet (many such
> from India) if representation is limited to current resource holders?

People who run for positions of authority in RIRs have, in my
experience always been
interested in the development of the Internet for all and the health
of the network going forward.

There is NO "representation" inherent in these roles.  In the AFRINIC
region there are "regional"
seats, but these people are charged with stewardship of the resources
for the entire AFRINIC region, not their
own sub-region.

>
>>
>>
>> Actually there is no "option" for redistribution of IPv4 addresses.
>> Are yoou really going to ask the entire planet to renumber their
>> networks?
>>
>
> [Guru]: Agreed. I agree that "redistribution" sounds rather drastic. Please
> take it to mean any instrument that you deem fit for fixing the present
> institutional arrangement.

What the ITU has been after for more than a decade is a role in v6
allocation on a per country basis.

However, that won't "fix" anything, it will only break the current
routing regime, so will be ignored by networks.

>
>>
>>
>>  The first is to
>> > go through the APNIC PDP, which is to reform APNIC from within. The
>> > second
>> > is to bypass APNIC and ask ITU to take over the RIR function. India
>> > seems to
>> > have adopted the second path due to lack of trust in the first path,
>> > which
>> > would be slow, bottom-up, and subject to resistance by incumbents.
>> > Further,
>> > APNIC EC plays a crucial role in the consensus building process and I
>> > doubt
>> > any reform of the APNIC EC will not be resisted.
>>
>>
>> It is the SIG Chairs in the APNIC region who administer the PDP, so
>> the EC doesn't have much to do with actual policy making besides
>> endorsing that the PDP was followed.  of course as individuals, they
>> can be involved, but in a multi-equal stakeholder system, they have no
>> more sway than any other individual.
>>
>> I don't believe that APNIC elections are subject to the PDP, though I
>> may be wrong.  Normally it is the bylaws of the RIR that set election
>> policy.
>>
>
> [Guru]: Either way, I'm guessing the Indian government perceived the ITU
> route to be easier to participate in than the PDP route. Maybe, this implies
> that the PDP needs to be more receptive to nation-states as stakeholders
> (yes yes, on an equal footing as other stakeholders). Maybe the PDP can be
> improved/fine-tuned to address the concerns of nation-states as stakeholders
> (yes yes, on an equal footing as other stakeholders).

Well, they are welcome to participate now.

I liken it to the old saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you
can't make them drink"

In both Europe and Africa there are efforts to pull government policy
makers into the process.  i imagine there is something similar in the
Asia-Pacific region.

>
>>
>> >
>> > 4) With respect to the IANA transition, the APNIC secretariat drafted a
>> > proposal and pushed that proposal top-down onto the community, which was
>> > accepted as having consensus without any intelligent discussion in a
>> > conference (APNIC38) at a remote location (please read transcripts of
>> > APNIC38). This proposal suggests NTIA oversight should be replaced with
>> > a
>> > SLA/AOC between ICANN and the NRO (combination of the 5 RIRs). An
>> > obvious
>> > corollary of this extra added responsibility of oversight should be
>> > enhanced
>> > accountability of the RIRs. Notably, APNIC is refusing to accept any
>> > discussions on enhancing its accountability as part of the IANA
>> > transition
>> > plan. Enhanced accountability of APNIC would include a measure of
>> > representativeness in my opinion.
>>
>> By "Enhanced accountability" you mean not accountable to the people
>> who hold the resources in the region?
>>
>>
>
> [Guru]: I mean accountable not just to the current resource holders but also
> to the future resources holders. Yes. The millions of future resource
> holders from India.

In theory, and in fact, people without any resources are welcome at
the policy making table.
I have never held any resources personally, but have participated in 3 RIR PDPs.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- 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