<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: I don't support the RIR joint proposal

hmmmm... see below:

On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote:

> <http://www.ripe.net/info/ncc/icann.mou.html>
>   "The Address Supporting Organization (ASO) will be a 
>    consensus-based advisory body within the ICANN framework."
> * There is a possibility, that a "consensus-based" system
>   could redefine fixed norms (eg. PI from 3.14 to 5.0).

I would argue that the scientific method that we know since the
Renaissance is in fact a consensus based system. People propose something,
others disagree and eventually it becomes public knowledge that PI is
indeed 3.14159265....

There have been examples that other systems (non consensus systems) have
defined PI as 3 or 22/7 - not sure if anyone has tried 5 yet.

> * I can not see how this ASO could effectively control the RIRs,
>   as well as  redefining a RIR role, creating/disbanding a RIR,
>   etc.

Now, the critical point is consensus between who ? Taking up your own
example I'd argue that regarding PI we should look for consensus between
mathematicians, regarding allocation of IP addresses we should look for
consensus between those who know what an IP address is, what it does, how
many of them there is, in short those who work with IP addresses.

Note that the ASO is not supposed to control the RIRs, ICANN is supposed
to do that and ICANN has other ASOs and other input.

> * But, who cares what I think anyway?

We will see.  

Frode Greisen                                      phone: +45 3915 0828
Ebone Inc.                                        mobile: +45 2083 7376
Lyngbyvej 28                                         fax: +45 3915 0810   
DK 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark             e-mail: frode.greisen@localhost

> regards,
> -- 
> -Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim VLSM-TJT --  http://www.vlsm.org/rms46/ --
> -Read the directions,even if you don't follow them!Everybody's Free

<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>