[governance] [bestbits] The decentralization of IP addresses

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

I was trying to be a bit diplomatic here. Oh well

--srs

> On 28-Nov-2015, at 6:49 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> While I agree 100% with David, here is a certain amount of crossover.
>> 
>> Such proposals have been floating around ITU circles for a great many years - India and China especially have been floating a trial balloon for national allocation of IP addresses for a while.
> 
> ​These notions probably originate in the guise of "traffic optimization" but actually pertain to the traceability of communication. An IP technologist recently pointed out that contiguous allocation is not necessary. He said "IP addresses, though somewhat randomly allocated, could easily be listed on a per country basis by the Agencies. Existing filtering system does this with zero need to reallocate anything​"​​ 
> 
>> 
>> India  eventually formed yet another instance of  that very asiapac creation - the NIR, an in country IP registry that works under the RIR framework and receives IP space from APNIC for allocation within India, so - theoretically - enabling Indian businesses to get local language support and pay the relevant fees in local currency.   China, Korea for example are other countries that formed NIRs years before India did.
>> 
>> In the RIPE region, for similar reasons, they have LIRs, local internet registries, private industry players that receive large IP allocations from RIPE and allocate them to local customers, together with payment and support in the local currency and language.
> 
> ​If there are reasons other than contiguous allocation,  such as local language support or ease of financial transactions, ​ ​it is OK that the RIRs enabled the formation of NIRs.  But these developments might make it desirable to think of governance changes that diametrically reverse the topic of this thread to that of a possible move towards greater centralization - by some form of enhanced role for the NRO, for uninterrupted harmony and the globalization of RIR functions (as also bring the NRO under the IANA Accountability framework​),​ more to emphasize that the Internet is Global, not National, not Regional. 
> 
> Sivasubramanian M
> ​
>> 
>> --srs
>> 
>> > On 28-Nov-2015, at 11:48 AM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > Why would states not compete for the award of rights of IP addresses if they were organised globally? Why do you wish to get rid of the RIRs? How do you think this relates to names, do you think that global generic (as opposed to country) names are a bad idea or is your proposal only for numbers?
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sivasubramanian M
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151128/64701061/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