[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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>