[At-Large] Depository (was Re: Privacy and domain abuse vs the IP constituency)
Eric Brunner-Williams
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Sun May 8 21:44:32 UTC 2011
Karl,
I accept that in your view Depository is attempting to innovate and
experiment.
I don't think it is.
Absent the suggestion by McTim that this Advisory Group should form a
view on the ASO process, or the appeal to an untested authority
inherent in ICANN through "hierarchy" offered by Mike Burns, the
substance and process are appropriately addressed on the ARIN-PPML
list, in which you are free to participate.
Turning to the history of RIRs, two mechanisms intended to scale as
the price of network adapters and of network attachment dropped have
been adopted.
I proposed a regional scheme, based upon the ITU's X.121
Recommendation, specifically the zone, represented as the first octet
of a Data Network Identification Code (DNIC) to create a small number
of regional registries. The ISO 3166 scheme was adopted instead,
creating two orders of magnitude more registries, for name to address
mappings.
The model of a regional scheme was adopted for address allocation
registries, as much in recognition that no specific competency existed
in North America which did not also exist in Western Europe and Japan,
as for territorial diversity, and the attendant jurisdictional
diversity. If consolidation were seriously proposed, it would be as
arbitrary now as it was earlier to assert which of {ARIN, RIPE, and
APNIC} is the first RIR to be eliminated.
I don't think the characterization "For no technical reason, but for
every political reason ... created two more RIRs" is correct.
There is technically defensible reason for delegation in technical
institutional development, a course pursued with diligence by the
Network Startup Resource Center, and others.
There is technically defensible reason for non-revocable delegation of
address resources, as Geoff Huston's projections show, the AFNIC and
LACNIC regions will be capable of general allocating v4 resources for
several years after the APNIC, ARIN and RIPE regions transition to
exhaustion allocation policies.
The aggregation is an enemy of regional registries claim would be more
credible if, as a general rule, access networks were predominantly
trans-regional. As they are not, for pricing and tariff and other
jurisdictionally scoped policy reasons, this is a weak claim of
non-necessity or inefficiency.
Finally, assuming all of the initial claims of Depository for the
purposes of argument, there is the specific choice of replicating the
domain market structure, in the address market.
There are two final claims to consider: first, that the domain market
structure is good, and the second, that innovation and experiment are
actually less useful than replication of an existing structure. I
don't think either of those are reasonable claims, or capable of
proof, though I understand they are offered as proved by assertion by
Depository, in its own pecuniary interest.
Eric
More information about the At-Large
mailing list