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

[Daniel Kalchev]

On 28.10.14 08:25, Guru Acharya wrote:
> In-line response.
> 
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:12 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org
> <mailto:drc at virtualized.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Guru,
> 
>     On Oct 27, 2014, at 12:48 AM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com
>     <mailto: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?

As already mentioned, wanting someone else's resources without their
proper consent is theft. How else would India go to convince those
parties that are already allocated IP address space to give it to them?
There already *IS* secondary market for IP address space and the early
"investors" got it cheap, but just like any other market, with more
demand, the prices are guaranteed to go up. Will India pay with public
money for this resource? Who will get it at the end? Why would the
public funds be approved to be spent for someone's business? (ok, I
know, this is happening everywhere)

As for colonialism, you don't want to go that route too. How far back
are you willing to go? It is very questionable who grabbed 'whose land'
resources at one moment. It is safer to stick with IP addressing, I believe.

Unfortunately, convincing you this kind of resource is a bit different
is not enough, as that would not convince the Indian government, nor
would it convince the ITU. Sometimes one really has to grow up and
experience all the real-life lessons first hand, to understand.

Regards,
Daniel

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