From olivia at ripe.net Tue Feb 16 13:31:39 2010 From: olivia at ripe.net (Olivia Mijnals-Ruimwijk) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:31:39 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] Announcement: RIPE NCC Training Courses Message-ID: <4B7A902B.4020202@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC invites you to register for one of our upcoming training courses: - The LIR Training Course This course teaches LIRs how to request Internet number resources and interact with the RIPE NCC. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/lir/outline.html - The Routing Registry Training Course This course teaches LIRs how to use the RIPE Database for routing. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/rr/outline.html - The IPv6 Training Course This course teaches LIRs about the need for IPv6 and includes basic information on how to plan your deployment. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/ipv6/outline.html To see the location of upcoming courses and to register, please use the LIR Portal or complete the registration form on our website at: RIPE NCC Upcoming Courses List & Registration https://lirportal.ripe.net/lirportal/training/course-list.html If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at . Kind regards, Rumy Kanis Training Services Manager RIPE NCC From ncc at ripe.net Wed Feb 24 17:45:03 2010 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:45:03 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] Be Heard! APNIC Community Consultation Next Week Message-ID: <3D7056F2-659E-4964-8683-767990E0A1FA@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, Internet address management may be on the brink of change. The ITU (International Telecommunications Union) is studying the creation of an alternative International Internet Registry model to operate in parallel to the existing RIR model. In collaboration with the NRO, APNIC is hosting a special session at APNIC 29 / APRICOT 2010 to give the global Internet community an opportunity to discuss the issues and ramifications of the alternative model proposed by the ITU. APNIC invites all Members of the global Internet Community to participate at: IPv6 Address Management and ITU - Is an "additional parallel structure" required? Where: APNIC 29, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia When: 14:00 - 15:30 (UTC +8), Wednesday, 3 March 2010 APNIC is an ITU-D sector Member and will attend the ITU IPv6 Working Group meeting in March that has been commissioned to study this issue in depth. APNIC will be reporting feedback from our Consultation to ensure community feedback is heard. Topics of discussion -------------------- 1. Where is the demand for this alternative system coming from? Would competition between IP address management systems bring any benefits to current and future Internet stakeholders? 2. Is it realistic to expect the policies of an alternative model as proposed by the ITU, to be consistent with RIR policies? Would the possibility of nationalized addressing systems lead to divergent policy systems? What would be the risks to the Internet of divergent policy environments? 3. If the ITU were to become an Internet registry, how would the ITU model affect the existing RIR model of open, bottom-up, and consensus-driven policy-making? More detailed information is available on: http://meetings.apnic.net/29/program/consultation How can you participate? ------------------------ Onsite ------ APNIC 29, Conference Hall 2, Kuala Lumpur Convention Center, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Remotely -------- Remote participants can watch via webcasting and can ask questions and make comments for the record via Jabber Chat. These tools can be adjusted to accommodate low bandwidth. Submissions ----------- APNIC is accepting written submissions. Please post your submission, identifying your name and affiliation and your comments on any or all of three discussion topics as well as general comments to: ipv6 at apnic.net More Information ---------------- For more information on remote participation, visit: http://meetings.apnic.net/29/remote For more information on the APNIC 29 program, visit: http://meetings.apnic.net/29 For further assistance, contact: helpdesk at apnic.net APNIC Secretariat Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61-7-3858-3100 PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Fax: +61-7-3858-3199 Level 1, 33 Park Road, Milton, QLD http://www.apnic.net From ncc at ripe.net Thu Feb 25 17:20:18 2010 From: ncc at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:20:18 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Message-ID: <43A17797-7C76-4BD7-855B-093B41362627@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, As you may be aware, the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) has convened an ITU IPv6 Group, the first meeting of which will be held on 15-16 March 2010 in Geneva, Switzerland. Information on this group is available at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/othergroups/ipv6/ Among the group's Terms of Reference are the following: * To draft a global policy proposal for the reservation of a large IPv6 block, taking into consideration the future needs of developing countries (as outlined in paragraph 23 of ITU document C09/29). * To further study possible methodologies and related implementation mechanisms to ensure 'equitable access' to IPv6 resource by countries. * To further study the possibility for ITU to become another Internet Registry, and propose policies and procedures for ITU to manage a reserved IPv6 block. * To further study the feasibility and advisability of implementing the CIR [Country Internet Registry] model for those countries who would request national allocations. The ITU IPv6 Group is open to ITU Member States and Sector Members of ITU-T and ITU-D. RIRs that are not members have also been extended an invitation to participate. IPv6 address policy is clearly of critical importance to the RIPE NCC membership, and the unsympathetic implementation of any of the Terms of Reference stated above would have serious impact on the global IP address distribution environment. Members of RIPE NCC staff will be participating in this meeting of the ITU IPv6 Group to represent the interests of our members and community. The position of the RIPE NCC is based on support for smooth and reliable working of the Internet globally, and for the bottom-up, open policy development process that allows for all stakeholders, including business, government and the technical community, to participate. Some of the issues addressed in the Terms of Reference listed above are a cause for concern because they could directly affect the RIPE NCC operations as a Regional Internet Registry (RIR). Therefore, the RIPE NCC position on the Terms of Reference is as follows: * The needs of developing economies in IP address policy are important. Network operators in these economies have fair and equal access to IPv6 resources from the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), and to the Policy Development Processes in their RIR and globally. Each of the RIRs has been allocated an equal block of IPv6 to distribute to networks in their region. (eg. AfriNIC has been allocated the same sized block of IPv6 as the RIPE NCC). * IPv6 allocations made by RIRs to date amount to the equivalent of 500 times the size of the entire IPv4 address pool, allocated to networks in over 150 economies. * If a significant sector in the Internet community feels that the "reservation of a large IPv6 block" for "the future needs of developing countries" is warranted, the open, bottom-up Policy Development Processes (PDPs) of the RIRs provide an appropriate forum in which to argue that case and develop such a policy. * The RIRs, as the recognised stewards of Internet Number Resources, are working, individually, jointly, and with invited experts, to engage the ITU membership. We have closely followed discussions in the ITU to date. The RIPE NCC does not believe that there are any problems that would be solved by the shift to a country-based allocation system or the installation of the ITU as an Internet Registry. The purpose of this email is to ensure that all RIPE NCC members are informed of the RIPE NCC's participation in this ITU IPv6 Group, and our position. If you have any comments or questions regarding this information, please send an email to . Kind regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC From dettenbach at skyway.net Thu Feb 25 19:41:21 2010 From: dettenbach at skyway.net (Niels Dettenbach) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:41:21 +0100 Subject: AW: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Message-ID: Dear all here, i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies. My personal meaning is: As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as possible equal treatment of all internet users. ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users. Not only that two different system will bring up significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth. Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit. There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets... I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and political concepts. Just my two cents... Cheers, Niels. Btw: sorry for my bad english... --- Niels Dettenbach LIR: de.skyway ND1000-RIPE http://www.skyway.net http://www.syndicat.com From sven at cb3rob.net Thu Feb 25 23:25:28 2010 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:25:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: AW: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Indeed, The telephone network is a country-centric setup where countries set up their own network and therefore claim control, even nowadays companies like vodafone still don't have one global single-tarif telephone network with a single "country" code, but still have individual countrycodes and tarifs within their infrastructure. Question remains if we, the owners of the internet infrastructure, -want- to outsource power over our infrastructure to such a club, which no doubt has got the intention of regulating it -per country- or wether we would rather have the network-as-a-whole governed by OUR representatives directly in the UN (if any change in how the internet is "managed" needs to take place anyway). After all, -we- have the biggest stick. we own the wires and the routers and the switches, most of the content and servers and most of the buildings this infrastructure is in. Countries get an infrastructure to run their economy on, but thusfar, there have been no real attempts by those countries to take control. now this is one mayor step towards handing over our power over the infrastructure to individual country governments instead of managing it ourselves like we always have done, and incase the country where your mailbox happens t be doesn't do what you like you can still fire everyone there and move your mailbox (and tax money) somewhere else ;). Once this ITU thing is in place, they could obtain total control over the distribution of address space... (at least on ipv6 ;) On the other hand, it does make it easier to terminate services to individual countries that don't act in the interest of the isps :P We indeed, prefer to stay with the current setup :P I'd rahter shut the thing down than hand over control to corrupt governments that frequently don't even act in the interest of their own voters (if they even have democracy ;) This "secondary" addressing thing won't be very "secondary" for long i bet you, this is clearly an attempt to take control over OUR network. If they want regulation, fine, we'll have a nice meeting and send some delegates to the UN, so those old-economy countries can discuss what they want and we'll tell them if we're going to implement that or not. The internet is a global network and it should STAY that way. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG (AS34109) CBSK1-RIPE On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Niels Dettenbach wrote: > Dear all here, > > i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies. > > My personal meaning is: > As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. > > Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. > > We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as possible equal treatment of all internet users. > > ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users. > > Not only that two different system will bring up significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth. > > Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit. > > There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets... > > I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and political concepts. > > Just my two cents... > Cheers, > > > Niels. > > Btw: sorry for my bad english... > > --- > Niels Dettenbach > LIR: de.skyway > ND1000-RIPE > http://www.skyway.net > http://www.syndicat.com > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > From dettenbach at skyway.net Fri Feb 26 07:30:57 2010 From: dettenbach at skyway.net (Niels Dettenbach) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:30:57 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] AW: Re: AW: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Message-ID: ...Just in addition: Handling over IP addressing / segmentation power to countries or even a country centric addressing policy will damage the former function of IP as a international / global "tool of democracy". If countries have direct or indirect control over IP segments they are able to "cut" or "block" IP segments countrywide which they see i.e. "abusive" to their political interests. As many Tier-1 carriers are using the IRs public ressources to filter their routes / traffic - this could bring up new (or even old) political interests within countries to "control" IP within their own countries. I see here many different negative impacts into rights like the freedom of speech. As a example: Political active groups or news agencies which still has outsourced their domain names have to outsource their IPs too (at least if they will find IPs within another accepting country)... Cheers, Niels. From awaite at tuenti.com Thu Feb 25 20:29:20 2010 From: awaite at tuenti.com (Adam Waite) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:29:20 +0100 Subject: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B86CF90.305@tuenti.com> I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable". Further, there are passages like this: " that it is in the public interest that IP-based networks and other telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and provide, at a minimum, the level of quality of service provided by traditional networks, consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized international standards, " This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage. Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views of anyone except for me. Adam Waite Niels Dettenbach wrote: > Dear all here, > > i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies. > > My personal meaning is: > As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. > > Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. > > We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as possible equal treatment of all internet users. > > ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users. > > Not only that two different system will bring up significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth. > > Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit. > > There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets... > > I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and political concepts. > > Just my two cents... > Cheers, > > > Niels. > > Btw: sorry for my bad english... > > --- > Niels Dettenbach > LIR: de.skyway > ND1000-RIPE > http://www.skyway.net > http://www.syndicat.com > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > From dennis.lundstrom at adamo.es Fri Feb 26 10:54:58 2010 From: dennis.lundstrom at adamo.es (Dennis Lundstrom) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:54:58 +0100 Subject: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: <4B86CF90.305@tuenti.com> References: <4B86CF90.305@tuenti.com> Message-ID: I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry makes no sense. It just adds confusion and administrative/juridical problems. As for development in third world countries. I think the current model is better adapted, since It's centered on technology and infrastructure. As well as open standards. Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With the ITU in the game, the balance of power over the cornerstones of the internet, might very well move in behind closed doors. I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create commercial monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair competition, leading to overpriced, low capacity services for the end-users. Also there is no real reason behind the claim? Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what way is an establishment of an new register justified? BR. --Dennis Lundstr?m Adamo Europe S.L On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote: > I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable". > > Further, there are passages like this: > " that it is in the public interest that IP-based networks and other > telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and provide, at a > minimum, the level of quality of service provided by traditional networks, > consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized international > standards, " > > > This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage. > > > Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views of anyone except for me. > > Adam Waite > > > > Niels Dettenbach wrote: >> Dear all here, >> >> i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies. >> >> My personal meaning is: >> As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. >> Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. >> We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as possible equal treatment of all internet users. >> >> ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users. >> >> Not only that two different system will bring up significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth. >> >> Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit. >> There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets... >> >> I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and political concepts. >> >> Just my two cents... >> Cheers, >> >> >> Niels. >> >> Btw: sorry for my bad english... >> >> --- >> Niels Dettenbach >> LIR: de.skyway >> ND1000-RIPE >> http://www.skyway.net >> http://www.syndicat.com >> >> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >> First click on General and then click on Edit. >> At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. From Robert.Smales at cw.com Fri Feb 26 11:27:27 2010 From: Robert.Smales at cw.com (Smales, Robert) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:27:27 -0000 Subject: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <602ACF092EFFB044931BD8746C19AD2F0275E65F@gbcwswiem006.ad.plc.cwintra.com> Me too. What standing has the ITU-T in the IP world? In the OSI model, sureley the ITU-T is purely layer 1? What I don't understand is how the ITU-T is going to get its hands on IPv6 space to hand out to its national telco members. If APNIC/LACNIC/AFRINIC don't allocate space to them, what exactly could the ITU-T do about it? If they pass this proposal, how is it going to be enforced? I also don't understand the rationale of the proposal - which developing country has been told that the IPv6 pool isn't big enough to meet its foreseeable needs? The Internet community has managed the run-out of IPv4, may not be perfect but there is a plan, and if IPv6 space shows any sign of running out, there is no reason to suppose that IPv7 will not be developed (256-bit address space anyone?). Robert Robert Smales Technical Engineer Cable&Wireless Worldwide www.cw.com > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of Dennis Lundstrom > Sent: 26 February 2010 09:55 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE > NCC Position > On The ITU IPv6 Group > > > I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry > makes no sense. It just adds confusion and > administrative/juridical problems. > As for development in third world countries. I think the > current model is better adapted, since It's centered on > technology and infrastructure. As well as open standards. > Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With > the ITU in the game, the balance of power over the > cornerstones of the internet, might very well move in behind > closed doors. > I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create > commercial monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair > competition, leading to overpriced, low capacity services for > the end-users. > > Also there is no real reason behind the claim? > Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what > way is an establishment of an new register justified? > > BR. > > --Dennis Lundstr?m > Adamo Europe S.L > > > On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote: > > > I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any > specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering > address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space > should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future > needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that > access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable". > > > > Further, there are passages like this: > > " that it is in the public interest that IP-based > networks and other > > telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and > provide, at a > > minimum, the level of quality of service provided by > traditional networks, > > consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized > international > > standards, " > > > > > > This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain > relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage. > > > > > > Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views > of anyone except for me. > > > > Adam Waite > > > > > > > > Niels Dettenbach wrote: > >> Dear all here, > >> > >> i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs > "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view > the internet got a huge commercialization over the last > decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his > success mainly from community driven organization and policies. > >> > >> My personal meaning is: > >> As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally > got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in > many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. > >> Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to > packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU > looses significant power and influence into the telco > industry worldwide. > >> We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and > RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from > users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from > local country policies as a very important base for a best as > possible equal treatment of all internet users. > >> > >> ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to > held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated > and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users. > >> > >> Not only that two different system will bring up > significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification > of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, > political disputes in many levels and make an most equal > treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible > on earth. > >> > >> Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin > countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within > certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU > still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite > space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment > of the geostationary satellite orbit. > >> There are countries which aren't using such segments > byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled > it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets... > >> > >> I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" > concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their > old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring > themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save > todays obsolete business and political concepts. > >> > >> Just my two cents... > >> Cheers, > >> > >> > >> Niels. > >> > >> Btw: sorry for my bad english... > >> > >> --- > >> Niels Dettenbach > >> LIR: de.skyway > >> ND1000-RIPE > >> http://www.skyway.net > >> http://www.syndicat.com > >> > >> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC > Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal > account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > >> First click on General and then click on Edit. > >> At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC > Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal > account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > > First click on General and then click on Edit. > > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members > Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ From Mark.Barber at brightstar.ltd.uk Fri Feb 26 12:15:54 2010 From: Mark.Barber at brightstar.ltd.uk (Mark Barber) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:15:54 +0000 Subject: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: <602ACF092EFFB044931BD8746C19AD2F0275E65F@gbcwswiem006.ad.plc.cwintra.com> References: <602ACF092EFFB044931BD8746C19AD2F0275E65F@gbcwswiem006.ad.plc.cwintra.com> Message-ID: <4F302F0742B7754C9D0A60991031D938C1102981@EXCHANGE.brightstar.local> Ok, so if we are all in agreement that the ITU should not become a registrar, certainly all of the people I have discussed this with feel the same way. Basically everyone is happy with the way it is and cannot see any sensible need for the proposed kind change suggested. So....... Forgive me for my ignorance, but what do we do next, what happens next. Is there going to be a vote? How much control over OUR internet do we really have ?? Mark Barber Brightstar Ltd. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Smales, Robert Sent: 26 February 2010 10:27 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Me too. What standing has the ITU-T in the IP world? In the OSI model, sureley the ITU-T is purely layer 1? What I don't understand is how the ITU-T is going to get its hands on IPv6 space to hand out to its national telco members. If APNIC/LACNIC/AFRINIC don't allocate space to them, what exactly could the ITU-T do about it? If they pass this proposal, how is it going to be enforced? I also don't understand the rationale of the proposal - which developing country has been told that the IPv6 pool isn't big enough to meet its foreseeable needs? The Internet community has managed the run-out of IPv4, may not be perfect but there is a plan, and if IPv6 space shows any sign of running out, there is no reason to suppose that IPv7 will not be developed (256-bit address space anyone?). Robert Robert Smales Technical Engineer Cable&Wireless Worldwide www.cw.com > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of Dennis Lundstrom > Sent: 26 February 2010 09:55 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE > NCC Position > On The ITU IPv6 Group > > > I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry > makes no sense. It just adds confusion and > administrative/juridical problems. > As for development in third world countries. I think the > current model is better adapted, since It's centered on > technology and infrastructure. As well as open standards. > Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With > the ITU in the game, the balance of power over the > cornerstones of the internet, might very well move in behind > closed doors. > I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create > commercial monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair > competition, leading to overpriced, low capacity services for > the end-users. > > Also there is no real reason behind the claim? > Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what > way is an establishment of an new register justified? > > BR. > > --Dennis Lundstr?m > Adamo Europe S.L > > > On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote: > > > I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any > specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering > address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space > should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future > needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that > access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable". > > > > Further, there are passages like this: > > " that it is in the public interest that IP-based > networks and other > > telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and > provide, at a > > minimum, the level of quality of service provided by > traditional networks, > > consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized > international > > standards, " > > > > > > This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain > relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage. > > > > > > Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views > of anyone except for me. > > > > Adam Waite > > > > > > > > Niels Dettenbach wrote: > >> Dear all here, > >> > >> i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs > "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view > the internet got a huge commercialization over the last > decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his > success mainly from community driven organization and policies. > >> > >> My personal meaning is: > >> As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally > got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in > many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. > >> Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to > packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU > looses significant power and influence into the telco > industry worldwide. > >> We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and > RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from > users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from > local country policies as a very important base for a best as > possible equal treatment of all internet users. > >> > >> ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to > held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated > and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users. > >> > >> Not only that two different system will bring up > significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification > of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, > political disputes in many levels and make an most equal > treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible > on earth. > >> > >> Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin > countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within > certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU > still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite > space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment > of the geostationary satellite orbit. > >> There are countries which aren't using such segments > byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled > it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets... > >> > >> I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" > concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their > old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring > themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save > todays obsolete business and political concepts. > >> > >> Just my two cents... > >> Cheers, > >> > >> > >> Niels. > >> > >> Btw: sorry for my bad english... > >> > >> --- > >> Niels Dettenbach > >> LIR: de.skyway > >> ND1000-RIPE > >> http://www.skyway.net > >> http://www.syndicat.com > >> > >> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC > Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal > account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > >> First click on General and then click on Edit. > >> At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC > Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal > account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > > First click on General and then click on Edit. > > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members > Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. From phil.barton at pncl.co.uk Fri Feb 26 13:20:45 2010 From: phil.barton at pncl.co.uk (Phil Barton) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:20:45 -0000 Subject: {Spam?} RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: <4F302F0742B7754C9D0A60991031D938C1102981@EXCHANGE.brightstar.local> References: <602ACF092EFFB044931BD8746C19AD2F0275E65F@gbcwswiem006.ad.plc.cwintra.com> <4F302F0742B7754C9D0A60991031D938C1102981@EXCHANGE.brightstar.local> Message-ID: <001801cab6de$2418cb00$6c4a6100$@barton@pncl.co.uk> agreed -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Mark Barber Sent: 26 February 2010 11:16 To: Smales, Robert; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Ok, so if we are all in agreement that the ITU should not become a registrar, certainly all of the people I have discussed this with feel the same way. Basically everyone is happy with the way it is and cannot see any sensible need for the proposed kind change suggested. So....... Forgive me for my ignorance, but what do we do next, what happens next. Is there going to be a vote? How much control over OUR internet do we really have ?? Mark Barber Brightstar Ltd. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Smales, Robert Sent: 26 February 2010 10:27 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Me too. What standing has the ITU-T in the IP world? In the OSI model, sureley the ITU-T is purely layer 1? What I don't understand is how the ITU-T is going to get its hands on IPv6 space to hand out to its national telco members. If APNIC/LACNIC/AFRINIC don't allocate space to them, what exactly could the ITU-T do about it? If they pass this proposal, how is it going to be enforced? I also don't understand the rationale of the proposal - which developing country has been told that the IPv6 pool isn't big enough to meet its foreseeable needs? The Internet community has managed the run-out of IPv4, may not be perfect but there is a plan, and if IPv6 space shows any sign of running out, there is no reason to suppose that IPv7 will not be developed (256-bit address space anyone?). Robert Robert Smales Technical Engineer Cable&Wireless Worldwide www.cw.com > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of Dennis Lundstrom > Sent: 26 February 2010 09:55 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE > NCC Position > On The ITU IPv6 Group > > > I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry > makes no sense. It just adds confusion and > administrative/juridical problems. > As for development in third world countries. I think the > current model is better adapted, since It's centered on > technology and infrastructure. As well as open standards. > Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With > the ITU in the game, the balance of power over the > cornerstones of the internet, might very well move in behind > closed doors. > I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create > commercial monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair > competition, leading to overpriced, low capacity services for > the end-users. > > Also there is no real reason behind the claim? > Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what > way is an establishment of an new register justified? > > BR. > > --Dennis Lundstr?m > Adamo Europe S.L > > > On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote: > > > I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any > specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering > address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space > should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future > needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that > access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable". > > > > Further, there are passages like this: > > " that it is in the public interest that IP-based > networks and other > > telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and > provide, at a > > minimum, the level of quality of service provided by > traditional networks, > > consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized > international > > standards, " > > > > > > This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain > relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage. > > > > > > Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views > of anyone except for me. > > > > Adam Waite > > > > > > > > Niels Dettenbach wrote: > >> Dear all here, > >> > >> i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs > "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view > the internet got a huge commercialization over the last > decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his > success mainly from community driven organization and policies. > >> > >> My personal meaning is: > >> As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally > got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in > many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. > >> Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to > packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU > looses significant power and influence into the telco > industry worldwide. > >> We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and > RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from > users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from > local country policies as a very important base for a best as > possible equal treatment of all internet users. > >> > >> ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to > held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated > and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users. > >> > >> Not only that two different system will bring up > significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification > of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, > political disputes in many levels and make an most equal > treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible > on earth. > >> > >> Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin > countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within > certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU > still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite > space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment > of the geostationary satellite orbit. > >> There are countries which aren't using such segments > byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled > it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets... > >> > >> I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" > concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their > old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring > themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save > todays obsolete business and political concepts. > >> > >> Just my two cents... > >> Cheers, > >> > >> > >> Niels. > >> > >> Btw: sorry for my bad english... > >> > >> --- > >> Niels Dettenbach > >> LIR: de.skyway > >> ND1000-RIPE > >> http://www.skyway.net > >> http://www.syndicat.com > >> > >> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC > Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal > account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > >> First click on General and then click on Edit. > >> At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC > Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal > account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > > First click on General and then click on Edit. > > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members > Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2710 - Release Date: 02/25/10 19:57:00 From MEttema at alkmaar.nl Fri Feb 26 14:01:07 2010 From: MEttema at alkmaar.nl (Michiel Ettema) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:01:07 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: <4F302F0742B7754C9D0A60991031D938C1102981@EXCHANGE.brightstar.local> References: <602ACF092EFFB044931BD8746C19AD2F0275E65F@gbcwswiem006.ad.plc.cwintra.com> <4F302F0742B7754C9D0A60991031D938C1102981@EXCHANGE.brightstar.local> Message-ID: Views expressed below are purely personal. Since the ITU is basically the voice of the UN on telecoms, I think these ITU proposals to be created mean that the UN has recognized the fact that they can pry control over ICANN out of the USA's cold dead hands. So now they try it a step lower and try to impose their nation centric model on the RIR's. If there is any way for members to assist RIPE and the NRO with convincing the ITU not to proceed this way I'd like to hear it. I fail to see any merit in the stated terms of reference. -reserving a large IPv6 block. Considering the size of the IPv6 adress space there will be no shortage in the forseeable future. If IPv6 adresses eventually do run out it will impact the entire internet and a new adressing scheme will have to be rolled out by all. Keeping developing nation on IPv6 at that time will not be beneficial to them. Just as staying with IPv4 now won't benefit anyone. So a reservation has no benefit. -'equitable access' to IPv6 resource by countries Nothing is preventing countries to register one of their governmental or regulatory bodies as LIR and have access to IPv6 resources. The current allocation policies already take care of the equitable access part. -ITU to become another Internet Registry The ITU political top down policy development process is not compatible with the current internet policy framework. Also all regions are already covered by RIR's and there is no argument that those are not adeqate for their task. -implementing the CIR [Country Internet Registry] model See equitable access. Countries can already do this and get adress space on (motivated) demand. They can also take part in policy development on equal footing with the rest of the internet community. Regards, Michiel -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] Namens Mark Barber Verzonden: vrijdag 26 februari 2010 12:16 Aan: Smales, Robert; members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Ok, so if we are all in agreement that the ITU should not become a registrar, certainly all of the people I have discussed this with feel the same way. Basically everyone is happy with the way it is and cannot see any sensible need for the proposed kind change suggested. So....... Forgive me for my ignorance, but what do we do next, what happens next. Is there going to be a vote? How much control over OUR internet do we really have ?? Mark Barber Brightstar Ltd. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Smales, Robert Sent: 26 February 2010 10:27 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Me too. What standing has the ITU-T in the IP world? In the OSI model, sureley the ITU-T is purely layer 1? What I don't understand is how the ITU-T is going to get its hands on IPv6 space to hand out to its national telco members. If APNIC/LACNIC/AFRINIC don't allocate space to them, what exactly could the ITU-T do about it? If they pass this proposal, how is it going to be enforced? I also don't understand the rationale of the proposal - which developing country has been told that the IPv6 pool isn't big enough to meet its foreseeable needs? The Internet community has managed the run-out of IPv4, may not be perfect but there is a plan, and if IPv6 space shows any sign of running out, there is no reason to suppose that IPv7 will not be developed (256-bit address space anyone?). Robert Robert Smales Technical Engineer Cable&Wireless Worldwide www.cw.com > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of Dennis Lundstrom > Sent: 26 February 2010 09:55 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC > Position On The ITU IPv6 Group > > > I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry makes no > sense. It just adds confusion and administrative/juridical problems. > As for development in third world countries. I think the current model > is better adapted, since It's centered on technology and > infrastructure. As well as open standards. > Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With the ITU in > the game, the balance of power over the cornerstones of the internet, > might very well move in behind closed doors. > I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create commercial > monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair competition, leading > to overpriced, low capacity services for the end-users. > > Also there is no real reason behind the claim? > Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what way is > an establishment of an new register justified? > > BR. > > --Dennis Lundstr?m > Adamo Europe S.L > > > On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote: > > > I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any > specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering address > space; rather, it merely asserts that address space should be set > aside to "[take] into consideration the future needs of developing > countries", and vague assertions that access to IP space is currently > somehow not "equitable". > > > > Further, there are passages like this: > > " that it is in the public interest that IP-based > networks and other > > telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and > provide, at a > > minimum, the level of quality of service provided by > traditional networks, > > consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized > international > > standards, " > > > > > > This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain > relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage. > > > > > > Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views > of anyone except for me. > > > > Adam Waite > > > > > > > > Niels Dettenbach wrote: > >> Dear all here, > >> > >> i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs > "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view the > internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many > peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from > community driven organization and policies. > >> > >> My personal meaning is: > >> As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally > got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many > countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. > >> Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to > packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses > significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. > >> We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and > RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in > other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies > as a very important base for a best as possible equal treatment of all > internet users. > >> > >> ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to > held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and > obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users. > >> > >> Not only that two different system will bring up > significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of > policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political > disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all > peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth. > >> > >> Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin > countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain > countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since > decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each > country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite > orbit. > >> There are countries which aren't using such segments > byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to > somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets... > >> > >> I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" > concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their old and > obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. > It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and > political concepts. > >> > >> Just my two cents... > >> Cheers, > >> > >> > >> Niels. > >> > >> Btw: sorry for my bad english... > >> > >> --- > >> Niels Dettenbach > >> LIR: de.skyway > >> ND1000-RIPE > >> http://www.skyway.net > >> http://www.syndicat.com > >> > >> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC > Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > >> First click on General and then click on Edit. > >> At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC > Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > > First click on General and then click on Edit. > > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss > list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ================================================================== From nick77 at msk.ytc.ru Fri Feb 26 15:16:09 2010 From: nick77 at msk.ytc.ru (Nick V. Berezenko) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:16:09 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: References: <602ACF092EFFB044931BD8746C19AD2F0275E65F@gbcwswiem006.ad.plc.cwintra.com> <4F302F0742B7754C9D0A60991031D938C1102981@EXCHANGE.brightstar.local> Message-ID: <001401cab6ee$3df57a90$b9e06fb0$@ytc.ru> This is my position too: 1. ITU as top down policies entity not compatible with current bottom-top making policies at IP world; 2. Any country may register own LIR and stay involved to using of IPv6 and other number resources; 3. ITU will become as world Internet registry? There is no needs to another RIR or world Internet Registry. Nick Berezenko, Yamaltelecom OJSC +7(495) 644-34-73 +7(349)22 7-18-24 -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Michiel Ettema Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 4:01 PM To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Views expressed below are purely personal. Since the ITU is basically the voice of the UN on telecoms, I think these ITU proposals to be created mean that the UN has recognized the fact that they can pry control over ICANN out of the USA's cold dead hands. So now they try it a step lower and try to impose their nation centric model on the RIR's. If there is any way for members to assist RIPE and the NRO with convincing the ITU not to proceed this way I'd like to hear it. I fail to see any merit in the stated terms of reference. -reserving a large IPv6 block. Considering the size of the IPv6 adress space there will be no shortage in the forseeable future. If IPv6 adresses eventually do run out it will impact the entire internet and a new adressing scheme will have to be rolled out by all. Keeping developing nation on IPv6 at that time will not be beneficial to them. Just as staying with IPv4 now won't benefit anyone. So a reservation has no benefit. -'equitable access' to IPv6 resource by countries Nothing is preventing countries to register one of their governmental or regulatory bodies as LIR and have access to IPv6 resources. The current allocation policies already take care of the equitable access part. -ITU to become another Internet Registry The ITU political top down policy development process is not compatible with the current internet policy framework. Also all regions are already covered by RIR's and there is no argument that those are not adeqate for their task. -implementing the CIR [Country Internet Registry] model See equitable access. Countries can already do this and get adress space on (motivated) demand. They can also take part in policy development on equal footing with the rest of the internet community. Regards, Michiel -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] Namens Mark Barber Verzonden: vrijdag 26 februari 2010 12:16 Aan: Smales, Robert; members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Ok, so if we are all in agreement that the ITU should not become a registrar, certainly all of the people I have discussed this with feel the same way. Basically everyone is happy with the way it is and cannot see any sensible need for the proposed kind change suggested. So....... Forgive me for my ignorance, but what do we do next, what happens next. Is there going to be a vote? How much control over OUR internet do we really have ?? Mark Barber Brightstar Ltd. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Smales, Robert Sent: 26 February 2010 10:27 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Me too. What standing has the ITU-T in the IP world? In the OSI model, sureley the ITU-T is purely layer 1? What I don't understand is how the ITU-T is going to get its hands on IPv6 space to hand out to its national telco members. If APNIC/LACNIC/AFRINIC don't allocate space to them, what exactly could the ITU-T do about it? If they pass this proposal, how is it going to be enforced? I also don't understand the rationale of the proposal - which developing country has been told that the IPv6 pool isn't big enough to meet its foreseeable needs? The Internet community has managed the run-out of IPv4, may not be perfect but there is a plan, and if IPv6 space shows any sign of running out, there is no reason to suppose that IPv7 will not be developed (256-bit address space anyone?). Robert Robert Smales Technical Engineer Cable&Wireless Worldwide www.cw.com > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of Dennis Lundstrom > Sent: 26 February 2010 09:55 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC > Position On The ITU IPv6 Group > > > I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry makes no > sense. It just adds confusion and administrative/juridical problems. > As for development in third world countries. I think the current model > is better adapted, since It's centered on technology and > infrastructure. As well as open standards. > Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With the ITU in > the game, the balance of power over the cornerstones of the internet, > might very well move in behind closed doors. > I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create commercial > monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair competition, leading > to overpriced, low capacity services for the end-users. > > Also there is no real reason behind the claim? > Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what way is > an establishment of an new register justified? > > BR. > > --Dennis Lundstr?m > Adamo Europe S.L > > > On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote: > > > I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any > specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering address > space; rather, it merely asserts that address space should be set > aside to "[take] into consideration the future needs of developing > countries", and vague assertions that access to IP space is currently > somehow not "equitable". > > > > Further, there are passages like this: > > " that it is in the public interest that IP-based > networks and other > > telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and > provide, at a > > minimum, the level of quality of service provided by > traditional networks, > > consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized > international > > standards, " > > > > > > This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain > relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage. > > > > > > Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views > of anyone except for me. > > > > Adam Waite > > > > > > > > Niels Dettenbach wrote: > >> Dear all here, > >> > >> i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs > "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view the > internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many > peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from > community driven organization and policies. > >> > >> My personal meaning is: > >> As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally > got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many > countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. > >> Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to > packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses > significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. > >> We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and > RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in > other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies > as a very important base for a best as possible equal treatment of all > internet users. > >> > >> ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to > held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and > obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users. > >> > >> Not only that two different system will bring up > significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of > policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political > disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all > peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth. > >> > >> Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin > countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain > countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since > decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each > country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite > orbit. > >> There are countries which aren't using such segments > byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to > somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets... > >> > >> I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" > concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their old and > obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. > It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and > political concepts. > >> > >> Just my two cents... > >> Cheers, > >> > >> > >> Niels. > >> > >> Btw: sorry for my bad english... > >> > >> --- > >> Niels Dettenbach > >> LIR: de.skyway > >> ND1000-RIPE > >> http://www.skyway.net > >> http://www.syndicat.com > >> > >> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC > Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > >> First click on General and then click on Edit. > >> At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC > Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > > First click on General and then click on Edit. > > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss > list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ================================================================== ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2708 - Release Date: 02/25/10 22:57:00 From nd at syndicat.com Fri Feb 26 16:12:05 2010 From: nd at syndicat.com (Niels Dettenbach) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:12:05 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: References: <4F302F0742B7754C9D0A60991031D938C1102981@EXCHANGE.brightstar.local> Message-ID: <201002261612.05221.nd@syndicat.com> Am Freitag 26 Februar 2010 14:01:07 schrieb Michiel Ettema: > -reserving a large IPv6 block. > Considering the size of the IPv6 adress space there will be no shortage in > the forseeable future. If IPv6 adresses eventually do run out it will > impact the entire internet and a new adressing scheme will have to be > rolled out by all. Keeping developing nation on IPv6 at that time will not > be beneficial to them. Just as staying with IPv4 now won't benefit anyone. > So a reservation has no benefit. I dind't see a significant problem in a forseeable next running out of address space. But problems will occur if there are very different possible policies available to get address space. I.e. countries may construct laws which will only allow / force one of them (i.e. their own) and it is to assume that there will be no significant international pressure on such governments because they let "participate" their peoples to the IP - but under their "control"... Such ideas was not new and in pratice for many telco networks by "tradition". > -'equitable access' to IPv6 resource by countries > Nothing is preventing countries to register one of their governmental or > regulatory bodies as LIR and have access to IPv6 resources. The current > allocation policies already take care of the equitable access part. May be, but nothing prevents ISPs to get their own IPs from the current system directly. If a government will / is forcing this it will get international pressure in some form (even if some first countries are trying so). > -ITU to become another Internet Registry > The ITU political top down policy development process is not compatible > with the current internet policy framework. Also all regions are already > covered by RIR's and there is no argument that those are not adeqate for > their task. I can't see any proven argument to change the current structures and for the following further management overhead... If the ITU is right they should be able to explain the improvements their own "new" system will bring us. The idea to let give ITU IP address space comes from peoples (politicans, lobbyists) which are thinking of IP adresses as telephone numbers. bets regards,, Niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach --- Syndicat IT&Internet http://www.syndicat.com T.-Muentzer.-Str. 2, 37308 Heilbad Heiligenstadt - DE --- Kryptoinfo: PGP public key ID 651CA20D Fingerprint: 55E0 4DCD B04C 4A49 1586 88AE 54DC 4465 651C A20D https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc --- From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Feb 26 20:03:12 2010 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:03:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: <4F302F0742B7754C9D0A60991031D938C1102981@EXCHANGE.brightstar.local> References: <602ACF092EFFB044931BD8746C19AD2F0275E65F@gbcwswiem006.ad.plc.cwintra.com> <4F302F0742B7754C9D0A60991031D938C1102981@EXCHANGE.brightstar.local> Message-ID: On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Mark Barber wrote: > How much control over OUR internet do we really have ?? Well, we can always just nullroute their bigass-prefix, should they even manage to obtain one, rendering it completely unusable to their little country government pals :P considering that they don't have a -right- to have their packets forwarded over our infrastructure... The internet works because it is in the common interest of participants to make it work, it is not in the common interest of the "community" to harbour organisations that form a threat to this principle, therefore, i would not see why we should assist them in their effort -at all-. Should they piss off the ISPs, it's quite easy to get rid of them after all. All this will lead to eventually is the facilitation of censorship... Bad Idea. "Stik dr maar in" as we say in dutch. He who owns the circus gets to run the show. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG (AS34109) CBSK1-RIPE On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Mark Barber wrote: > Ok, so if we are all in agreement that the ITU should not become a registrar, certainly all of the people I have discussed this with feel the same way. > > Basically everyone is happy with the way it is and cannot see any sensible need for the proposed kind change suggested. > > So....... > > Forgive me for my ignorance, but what do we do next, what happens next. Is there going to be a vote? > > How much control over OUR internet do we really have ?? > > > Mark Barber > Brightstar Ltd. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Smales, Robert > Sent: 26 February 2010 10:27 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group > > Me too. > > What standing has the ITU-T in the IP world? In the OSI model, sureley the ITU-T is purely layer 1? > > What I don't understand is how the ITU-T is going to get its hands on IPv6 space to hand out to its national telco members. If APNIC/LACNIC/AFRINIC don't allocate space to them, what exactly could the ITU-T do about it? If they pass this proposal, how is it going to be enforced? > > I also don't understand the rationale of the proposal - which developing country has been told that the IPv6 pool isn't big enough to meet its foreseeable needs? The Internet community has managed the run-out of IPv4, may not be perfect but there is a plan, and if IPv6 space shows any sign of running out, there is no reason to suppose that IPv7 will not be developed (256-bit address space anyone?). > > Robert > > Robert Smales > Technical Engineer > Cable&Wireless Worldwide > www.cw.com > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net >> [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of Dennis Lundstrom >> Sent: 26 February 2010 09:55 >> To: members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE >> NCC Position >> On The ITU IPv6 Group >> >> >> I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry >> makes no sense. It just adds confusion and >> administrative/juridical problems. >> As for development in third world countries. I think the >> current model is better adapted, since It's centered on >> technology and infrastructure. As well as open standards. >> Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With >> the ITU in the game, the balance of power over the >> cornerstones of the internet, might very well move in behind >> closed doors. >> I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create >> commercial monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair >> competition, leading to overpriced, low capacity services for >> the end-users. >> >> Also there is no real reason behind the claim? >> Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what >> way is an establishment of an new register justified? >> >> BR. >> >> --Dennis Lundstr?m >> Adamo Europe S.L >> >> >> On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote: >> >>> I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any >> specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering >> address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space >> should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future >> needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that >> access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable". >>> >>> Further, there are passages like this: >>> " that it is in the public interest that IP-based >> networks and other >>> telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and >> provide, at a >>> minimum, the level of quality of service provided by >> traditional networks, >>> consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized >> international >>> standards, " >>> >>> >>> This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain >> relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage. >>> >>> >>> Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views >> of anyone except for me. >>> >>> Adam Waite >>> >>> >>> >>> Niels Dettenbach wrote: >>>> Dear all here, >>>> >>>> i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs >> "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view >> the internet got a huge commercialization over the last >> decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his >> success mainly from community driven organization and policies. >>>> >>>> My personal meaning is: >>>> As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally >> got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in >> many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. >>>> Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to >> packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU >> looses significant power and influence into the telco >> industry worldwide. >>>> We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and >> RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from >> users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from >> local country policies as a very important base for a best as >> possible equal treatment of all internet users. >>>> >>>> ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to >> held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated >> and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users. >>>> >>>> Not only that two different system will bring up >> significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification >> of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, >> political disputes in many levels and make an most equal >> treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible >> on earth. >>>> >>>> Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin >> countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within >> certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU >> still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite >> space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment >> of the geostationary satellite orbit. >>>> There are countries which aren't using such segments >> byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled >> it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets... >>>> >>>> I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" >> concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their >> old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring >> themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save >> todays obsolete business and political concepts. >>>> >>>> Just my two cents... >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> >>>> Niels. >>>> >>>> Btw: sorry for my bad english... >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Niels Dettenbach >>>> LIR: de.skyway >>>> ND1000-RIPE >>>> http://www.skyway.net >>>> http://www.syndicat.com >>>> >>>> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC >> Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal >> account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >>>> First click on General and then click on Edit. >>>> At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. >>> >>> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC >> Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal >> account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >>> First click on General and then click on Edit. >>> At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members >> Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange > > The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. > > Cable and Wireless plc > Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 > Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > From ccombes at e-teleport.net Fri Feb 26 18:27:15 2010 From: ccombes at e-teleport.net (combes) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:27:15 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B880473.4050404@e-teleport.net> Hi Surprise !! Internet is a surprise in a world where everything is merchandised The last 30 years last years were particularly marked by this movement (thanks to the notable influence of the /World Trade Organization)/ Yes, Internet is an unbearable surprise. How a "common good" could develop itself while everything around was "regulated" toward private interests ? Behind ITU everybody can see the stake : the control of the tremendous voice market, voice over IP indeed (IPV6, E164, ENUM and so on...) To maintain its status of vital "common good", Internet needs as much neutrality as possible I agree with the previous analysis Claude Combes Directeur Technique & Prospective INTERMEDIASUD Ce courrier ?lectronique et toutes les pi?ces jointes sont strictement confidentiels et destin?s exclusivement au(x) destinataire(s) mentionn?(s) ci-dessus. Si vous avez re?u ce message par erreur, ou s'il ne vous est pas destin?, veuillez le signaler imm?diatement ? l'exp?diteur et effacer ce courrier ?lectronique. Sven Olaf Kamphuis a ?crit : > Indeed, > > The telephone network is a country-centric setup where countries set > up their own network and therefore claim control, even nowadays > companies like vodafone still don't have one global single-tarif > telephone network with a single "country" code, but still have > individual countrycodes > and tarifs within their infrastructure. > > Question remains if we, the owners of the internet infrastructure, > -want- to outsource power over our infrastructure to such a club, > which no doubt has got the intention of regulating it -per country- or > wether we would rather have the network-as-a-whole governed by OUR > representatives directly in the UN (if any change in how the internet > is "managed" needs to take place anyway). > > After all, -we- have the biggest stick. we own the wires and the > routers and the switches, most of the content and servers and most of > the buildings this infrastructure is in. > > Countries get an infrastructure to run their economy on, but thusfar, > there have been no real attempts by those countries to take control. > > now this is one mayor step towards handing over our power over the > infrastructure to individual country governments instead of managing > it ourselves like we always have done, and incase the country where > your mailbox happens t be doesn't do what you like you can still fire > everyone there and move your mailbox (and tax money) somewhere else ;). > > Once this ITU thing is in place, they could obtain total control over > the distribution of address space... (at least on ipv6 ;) > > On the other hand, it does make it easier to terminate services to > individual countries that don't act in the interest of the isps :P > > We indeed, prefer to stay with the current setup :P > > I'd rahter shut the thing down than hand over control to corrupt > governments that frequently don't even act in the interest of their > own voters (if they even have democracy ;) > > This "secondary" addressing thing won't be very "secondary" for long i > bet you, this is clearly an attempt to take control over OUR network. > > If they want regulation, fine, we'll have a nice meeting and send some > delegates to the UN, so those old-economy countries can discuss what > they want and we'll tell them if we're going to implement that or not. > > The internet is a global network and it should STAY that way. > -- This e-mail message and any attachments are strictly confidential and intended only for the named recipient(s) above. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message. From zivl at gilat.net Sun Feb 28 19:03:31 2010 From: zivl at gilat.net (Ziv Leyes) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:03:31 +0200 Subject: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: References: <602ACF092EFFB044931BD8746C19AD2F0275E65F@gbcwswiem006.ad.plc.cwintra.com> <4F302F0742B7754C9D0A60991031D938C1102981@EXCHANGE.brightstar.local> Message-ID: I have an idea of how to solve the problem, in a "win-win" way Why don't we just give ITU the TOTAL control and management of the IPv5 address space? All of it! They can do whatever they want with them! Seriously talking, I think that they shouldn't try to change something that works fine for all of us "If it ain't broken don't try to fix it" -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sven Olaf Kamphuis Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 9:03 PM To: Mark Barber Cc: Smales, Robert; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Mark Barber wrote: > How much control over OUR internet do we really have ?? Well, we can always just nullroute their bigass-prefix, should they even manage to obtain one, rendering it completely unusable to their little country government pals :P considering that they don't have a -right- to have their packets forwarded over our infrastructure... The internet works because it is in the common interest of participants to make it work, it is not in the common interest of the "community" to harbour organisations that form a threat to this principle, therefore, i would not see why we should assist them in their effort -at all-. Should they piss off the ISPs, it's quite easy to get rid of them after all. All this will lead to eventually is the facilitation of censorship... Bad Idea. "Stik dr maar in" as we say in dutch. He who owns the circus gets to run the show. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG (AS34109) CBSK1-RIPE On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Mark Barber wrote: > Ok, so if we are all in agreement that the ITU should not become a registrar, certainly all of the people I have discussed this with feel the same way. > > Basically everyone is happy with the way it is and cannot see any sensible need for the proposed kind change suggested. > > So....... > > Forgive me for my ignorance, but what do we do next, what happens next. Is there going to be a vote? > > How much control over OUR internet do we really have ?? > > > Mark Barber > Brightstar Ltd. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Smales, Robert > Sent: 26 February 2010 10:27 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group > > Me too. > > What standing has the ITU-T in the IP world? In the OSI model, sureley the ITU-T is purely layer 1? > > What I don't understand is how the ITU-T is going to get its hands on IPv6 space to hand out to its national telco members. If APNIC/LACNIC/AFRINIC don't allocate space to them, what exactly could the ITU-T do about it? If they pass this proposal, how is it going to be enforced? > > I also don't understand the rationale of the proposal - which developing country has been told that the IPv6 pool isn't big enough to meet its foreseeable needs? The Internet community has managed the run-out of IPv4, may not be perfect but there is a plan, and if IPv6 space shows any sign of running out, there is no reason to suppose that IPv7 will not be developed (256-bit address space anyone?). > > Robert > > Robert Smales > Technical Engineer > Cable&Wireless Worldwide > www.cw.com > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net >> [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of Dennis Lundstrom >> Sent: 26 February 2010 09:55 >> To: members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE >> NCC Position >> On The ITU IPv6 Group >> >> >> I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry >> makes no sense. It just adds confusion and >> administrative/juridical problems. >> As for development in third world countries. I think the >> current model is better adapted, since It's centered on >> technology and infrastructure. As well as open standards. >> Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With >> the ITU in the game, the balance of power over the >> cornerstones of the internet, might very well move in behind >> closed doors. >> I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create >> commercial monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair >> competition, leading to overpriced, low capacity services for >> the end-users. >> >> Also there is no real reason behind the claim? >> Why does not the current model work for the ITU? And in what >> way is an establishment of an new register justified? >> >> BR. >> >> --Dennis Lundstr?m >> Adamo Europe S.L >> >> >> On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote: >> >>> I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any >> specific complaints about how IANA is currently administering >> address space; rather, it merely asserts that address space >> should be set aside to "[take] into consideration the future >> needs of developing countries", and vague assertions that >> access to IP space is currently somehow not "equitable". >>> >>> Further, there are passages like this: >>> " that it is in the public interest that IP-based >> networks and other >>> telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and >> provide, at a >>> minimum, the level of quality of service provided by >> traditional networks, >>> consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized >> international >>> standards, " >>> >>> >>> This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain >> relevant by holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage. >>> >>> >>> Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views >> of anyone except for me. >>> >>> Adam Waite >>> >>> >>> >>> Niels Dettenbach wrote: >>>> Dear all here, >>>> >>>> i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs >> "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view >> the internet got a huge commercialization over the last >> decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his >> success mainly from community driven organization and policies. >>>> >>>> My personal meaning is: >>>> As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally >> got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in >> many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. >>>> Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to >> packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU >> looses significant power and influence into the telco >> industry worldwide. >>>> We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and >> RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from >> users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from >> local country policies as a very important base for a best as >> possible equal treatment of all internet users. >>>> >>>> ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to >> held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated >> and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users. >>>> >>>> Not only that two different system will bring up >> significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification >> of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, >> political disputes in many levels and make an most equal >> treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible >> on earth. >>>> >>>> Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin >> countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within >> certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU >> still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite >> space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment >> of the geostationary satellite orbit. >>>> There are countries which aren't using such segments >> byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled >> it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets... >>>> >>>> I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" >> concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their >> old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring >> themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save >> todays obsolete business and political concepts. >>>> >>>> Just my two cents... >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> >>>> Niels. >>>> >>>> Btw: sorry for my bad english... >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Niels Dettenbach >>>> LIR: de.skyway >>>> ND1000-RIPE >>>> http://www.skyway.net >>>> http://www.syndicat.com >>>> >>>> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC >> Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal >> account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >>>> First click on General and then click on Edit. >>>> At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. >>> >>> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC >> Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal >> account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >>> First click on General and then click on Edit. >>> At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members >> Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange > > The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. > > Cable and Wireless plc > Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 > Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************ ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************