[NA-Discuss] Google Fiber

Thomas Lowenhaupt toml at communisphere.com
Sun Jan 27 19:45:13 UTC 2013


Thank you for the post.

After reading your post and rereading the Washing Post article I'm left 
with a couple of questions. (aka spinning head)

Looking at this question from the narrow perspective of New York City, 
are you saying that IP4/6 address allocation to entities that might seek 
to compete with the existing bandwidth oligopoly is dependent on an 
address-freeing action from the ICANN? And thus the relevance to the 
NA-Discuss list, to answer Joly's question, is that if we're interested 
in improving bandwidth in New York, the list should bottom-up an 
enabling request to the ICANN board of directors?

Tom Lowenhaupt

On 1/27/2013 2:06 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> And this relates to NARALO how?
> Joly,
> The provisioning of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in association with
> bandwidth in excess of 56kB in the national markets within the "NARALO
> region" is constrained by national law.  In rural areas the constraint
> is implemented through a lack of universal access public policy, in
> urban agglomerations the constraint is implemented through monopoly
> grants of utility infrastructure for wireline placement, and
> restrictions on access to local exchange carrier infrastructure.
> The project Glenn cited, which is the subject of interest of Susan
> Crawford and others working on the public policy of network access,
> and similar projects undertaken by public agencies in the NARALO
> region, provision IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in association with
> bandwidth in excess of 56kB, and do so independently of the economic
> organization (local monopoly) of the local franchise holders and
> advantages granted incumbent local exchange carriers.
> So if, and only if, the ICANN Board may be benefited by advice that
> touches on IPv4 and/or IPv6 address allocation with conditions
> associated with (a) prefix announcement to the default free zone and
> (b) bandwidth in excess of 56kB in the North American region, then
> some relationship between the bylaws role of "At Large" and its
> geographical subdivision and experiments in the technologies of
> addresses-and-conditions and initiatives in their availabilities in
> North America nominally exists.
> I hope this answers your initial question. If so, then I hope that you
> may see that address allocation with announcement and link
> characteristic conditions is fundamental to equity of access policy.
> Eric
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list