[address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Mon Apr 16 22:49:56 CEST 2012
OK, apologies, Scott, for misreading the thrust of your message. You are indeed welcome to participate in a IGF dialogue focused on globalizing transfer policy, remotely I would guess, time zones permitting. I will keep you informed. > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 4:12 PM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) > > On Apr 15, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote: > > > Three in a row: three consecutive, mutually reinforcing indications of bad > faith. > > > > Scott Leibrand: "we shouldn't have a global policy because of 'differences in > the different regions' situations...'" In other words (to translate from the > original American), "my region has a self-interest in creating trade barriers." > > I think you're confusing me with someone who opposes liberalizing > (inter-regional) transfer policy. My main accomplishments in the realm > of ARIN policy have actually been to help get transfer policies > adopted: first a local one, and more recently an inter-regional > transfer policy that reduces "trade barriers" between ARIN/APNIC and > any other regions that choose to participate. To use an economic > analogy, we first created regional trade areas (with needs based > "licensing" requirements in some regions, which we've liberalized to a > 24 month supply in North America). We then expanded that to a > multilateral "trade agreement" between North America and the Asia > Pacific region, and also offered the same terms to the rest of the > world. (Of course, none of what we're going is actually trade > negotiation in the traditional sense, as there are no governmental > trade barriers to be removed, so that is only an analogy.) > > > Yeah, I know that, Scott, that's my point. And your second point seems to > boil down to this: those of us currently running RIRs feel more comfortable > doing bilateral deals with our buddies in other RIRs. Yeah, I know that, Scott, > that's my point. So you don't think there's anything wrong with that? So you > don't want to let anyone else in the game? Please reconsider. > > The regional registries register the addresses, so they have to be > involved if you want transfers recorded. If you want to involve other > multilateral organizations as well in coming up with a proposed global > policy, I have no problem with it. It might in fact allow you to come > up with language for a global policy that has a better chance of > getting consensus. But I still think there are enough regions that > don't want to participate in inter-regional IPv4 address transfers > (yet) that the chances of getting such a global policy adopted in all > regions is low, so I'm focusing my efforts on allowing inter-regional > transfers between regions with an interest in doing so. But if you'd > like input on crafting a global policy, I'd be happy to participate > electronically, or in person at an upcoming ARIN or LACNIC meeting. I > probably won't make it to any other upcoming fora in person, though. > > And, as always, everyone is welcome to participate in the RIRs' policy > processes, either by subscribing to mailing lists like this one, or > showing up at public policy meetings. I for one believe we need more > input from a broader array of participants. (It was good to meet you > at a recent ARIN meeting, and I hope you'll come to future meetings as > well.) > > > Let's lay this out even clearer for all to see: > > > > Any time someone expresses dissatisfaction with current RIR approaches > to address policy, out comes the broken record: "make a policy proposal and > put it before the RIRs." And as soon as someone starts to do that, and asks > you to get serious about cooperating with them, you come up with a dozen > lame excuses to tell them, as Randy colorfully put it, to "foad" > > You are correct that new policy proposals tend to be opposed by some > segment of the community. I've attempted to counter that by working > with proposal authors to take the community's feedback and use it to > make revisions or craft a new proposal that will engender less > opposition and more support from the community. I don't think the > opposition is a symptom of an insular policy process, so much as a > manifestation of the conservative approach many network operators and > other interested members of the IP addressing community take to > proposed changes to rules/policies. > > I usually involve myself mostly in my home region (ARIN), but if > anyone in the RIPE region would like to work on proposing an > inter-regional transfer policy along the lines of what ARIN and APNIC > have adopted, I'd be happy to collaborate. > > > The workshop will happen. There will be a global proposal. You CAN make it > fail and you probably will. But in the not-so-long run, that could end up being > a major defeat for you, not me and the others you think you are fending off. > A lot of people are starting to watch this. > > If a global policy fails, it is because the interested parties who > choose to participate in the RIR policy processes don't all think it's > a good idea. In fact, the way the global policy process is > constructed, there has to be a consensus in all five regions, so the > chances of anything controversial getting adopted that way is fairly > low. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing. > > -Scott > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > >> bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of McTim > >> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 10:27 PM > >> To: RIPE Address Policy Working Group > >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) > >> > >> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> > >>>> As has been noted, there already is a successfully working process > >>>> for submission of global policies in the Internet number registry > >>>> system In fact, I pointed that fact out specifically to Milton the > >>>> other day - > >>>> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/04/06/the-coming-trade- > war-in > >>>> - > >>>> ip-address-blocks/#comment-1031> > >>> > >>> [Milton L Mueller] > >>> > >>> Yes, John and I have had many conversations about this. > >>> > >>> I will be putting together a workshop at the Baku IGF on precisely > >>> this topic. Why don't we use that opportunity to make it a real > >>> WORKshop and attempt to develop consensus around a global policy > that > >>> could be submitted > >> > >> so you want to develop a policy proposal in Forum A which can only be > >> decided upon in Fora B, C, D, E and F?? > >> > >> As John has indicated, it wouldn't be appropriate for RIR staff to > >> represent their respective community's position since in some cases they > >> don't know what it would be unless a proposal is put in front of their > >> community, and it is not the role of the RIR staff to make global > >> policy. > >> > >> You would have more success (I think) if you used the argument "we > >> should all run out at the same time" to push for a global transfer > >> policy. I don't think an appeal to free market purism will win many > >> folk, at least that is my sense from my experience as a co-chair of the > >> AfriNIC PDWG. We rejected a free market based proposal less than a > year > >> ago. > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> > >> McTim > >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> following the procedure John has outlined? Are you in John? > >>> How about a RIPE-NCC representative? Any takers? > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]