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

[David Conrad]

Guru,

On Oct 27, 2014, at 11:25 PM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think India wants to plunder Africa as you suggest.

You are stating India wants IPv4 addresses to be redistributed. The largest remaining pool of unallocated addresses is held by AfriNIC. This sort of implies India wants to extract African resources, no?

> You're limiting your thinking to the resources that are left in the IPv4 resource pool,

Err. You said: "Im talking about IPv4."

> while India may possibly be thinking of redistribution of resources that have already been allocated.

As Daniel Kalchev notes, this is more colloquially known as "theft".

>> 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.
> 
> Thats an incorrect representation of the work done by the APNIC EC. Please read the list of functions performed by the APNIC EC here

I think I might know a bit about the role of APNIC's EC (having created it long ago). You asked in relation to the APNIC EC:

"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?"

If you read the page you referenced, you'll see that the APNIC EC members do NOT have a representative role. They do NOT (and more realistically, cannot) represent people, connected or not, from India or not, resource holders or not. The role of the EC is to oversee the proper operation of APNIC. Policy definition is left to the community via the policy definition process, defined by the community, that the APNIC EC oversees.

There is no restriction about who can participate in policy definition processes. You do NOT have to be a current resource holder or even be connected to the Internet to participate.

> 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?

Not having been at APNIC38 nor closely followed APNIC's efforts related to the transition, I can't comment on specifics.  However, if the APNIC EC has overstepped its role, I don't believe the correct solution would be to try to turn it into a representative body (which simply won't work), rather it would be for the membership to push back on the APNIC EC so that it operates within its tightly constrained role.

Regards,
-drc
(ICANN CTO (and also a bit involved in the creation of APNIC and former APNIC DG), but speaking only for myself. Really.)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141028/a3cb5ce8/attachment.sig>
-------------- 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