[NA-Discuss] address allocation, was Google Fiber

Eric Brunner-Williams ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Mon Feb 11 00:02:08 UTC 2013

On 2/10/13 3:46 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> I recall hearing, from Avri, that this was one of the main drivers
> behind the arab support of the ITU at WCIT, that they had been
> short-changed on IPv4's.

I'm not going to interpret Avri's interpretation. I did however,
prepare, at the invitation of the League of Arab States, responses to
their Request for Information for a gTLD, and the subsequent Request
for Proposals for a gTLD, and earlier, at the Cairo meeting, I
listened to the Arab caucus and offered comment on the allocations of
iso3166-1 code points to the European Union, Palestine, and several
regional Intellectual Property organizations. Earlier still (over a
decade now) I surveyed the DNS use of the .iq and adjacency-plus-one
states and was a source of information concerning the eventual
re-delegation of .iq.

I have the impression that v4 address allocation is only one of
several issues that some of the League's members may have thought
significant, and by itself, insufficient to motivate fundamental
policy goals, including choice of fora. You, and everyone else, are
free to reach the conclusion(s) of your choice(s).

> Naive, as I am, I am still a little unsure of how much the
> distribution of ip addresses is ICANN's business.

Having responded to this previously, without apparent success, I will
simply point out that there are people on the addressing side of the
business who are also unsure how much the distribution of domain names
is ICANN's business.

To be pedantic, even the allocation of protocol parameters, e.g., HTTP
status codes, [1] as well as addresses and names, is contained within
the IANA Function, which is contracted to ICANN at present, and is,
therefore, ICANN's business.



More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list