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

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Redistribution, mostly to cronies, is how mugabe managed things - with the 
result that Zimbabwe is now a basket case. So yes the colonial analogy is 
sadly relevant.



On 28 October 2014 11:55:47 am Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20141028/6b107428/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