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

[Guru Acharya]

In-line response.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:12 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:

> Guru,
>
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 12:48 AM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> > 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".
> > ...
>
> > IPv6 is a distant dream that will overcome the artificial scarcity and
> will understandably resolve the current situation. Im talking about IPv4.
>
> The scarcity of IPv4 address is _not_ artificial. It is simply a fact.  As
> such the verb tense you used was wrong: the allocation _was_
> "first-come-first-serve".
>
> If I understand correctly, the implication of Proposal 98 is that the
> government of India wants to (a) strip IPv4 addresses from current
> registrants and/or (b) "redistribute" the remaining pool of IPv4 addresses,
> mostly held by AfriNIC (other RIRs have some address space left, but
> AfriNIC has, by far, the largest remaining pool) in a more "fair" (to
> whom?) fashion.
>
> If viewed in the worst possible light, one could argue (a) is theft and
> (b) is reminiscent of past colonialist behavior with respect to resources
> on the continent of Africa.
>
>
[Guru]: I like how you brought colonialism of Africa into this. I don't
think India wants to plunder Africa as you suggest. You're limiting your
thinking to the resources that are left in the IPv4 resource pool, while
India may possibly be thinking of redistribution of resources that have
already been allocated. In that sense, in your paradigm of colonialism, let
me argue that India wants inhuman colonialists and plunderers like the
Europeans and Americans to return the plundered resources back to the
innocent folks of Africa and Asia.

Now did you really want to bring in the colonialism paradigm into the
simple explanation of India's concerns?



> Neither of these seem either tenable or appropriate. As such, I have to
> wonder what exactly the point of Proposal 98 actually is.
>
> > [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?
>
> There is a misunderstanding the role of APNIC's EC here. They do not make
> policy or represent anyone other than themselves. They ensure policy
> developed via the bottom-up community processes has followed the APNIC
> policy development process.
>
>
[Guru]: Thats an incorrect representation of the work done by the APNIC EC.
Please read the list of functions performed by the APNIC EC here:
http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/organization/structure/apnic-executive-council/EC-roles-and-obligations

Further, there are many issues like the IANA transition that fall outside
the scope of the Policy SIG. For example, the APNIC EC was seen to have
pushed its proposal (prepared by the EC and secretariat) for the IANA
transition during APNIC38 in a top-down fashion. Are you really suggesting
the APNIC EC has no role to play here as well?



> > [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.
>
> I'm not sure changing the terminology has much of an impact. Given the
> exhaustion of the IPv4 free pool, the 'instrument' is either some global
> version of "eminent domain" or markets, neither of which will address the
> fundamental underlying problem: 32 bits simply can not meet the global
> demand. Even in a world where one can renumber the entire Internet, you
> still have the problem that there are far more devices than can be address
> by 32 bits _now_, much less in the future.
>
>
[Guru]: Ok. Then lets stick to "redistribution" as the appropriate
"instrument".



> Regards,
> -drc
> (ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself. Really.)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141028/6fe9a5c0/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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