[NA-Discuss] Article on CircleID by Chris Grundermann (ISOC CO ALS)
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Mon May 27 17:15:43 UTC 2013
This revisits the Google fiber thread of last February. At the time I
> However, if there is a possible action item it is to consider whether
> the allocation of scarce resources, specifically IPv4 assets, either
> those remaining for allocation or those recovered for reallocation or
> those tendered for transfer as "assets" or "rights", is, consistent
> with the public interest, determined only by the capitalization of
> applications for (re)allocation.
There are those in ARIN who argue that "the market" is a better
allocator than "the public interest", and so are opposed to the
continued use of needs based justification for allocation. Similar
expressions of preference for "the market" and aversion for "the
public interest" exist within other RIRs.
Milton Meuller frequently makes this point in a variety of venues, now
the ARIN Advisory Council, as do several others, some associated with
"address block" sales/lease broker businesses.
Has anything changed from when last we communicated via na-discuss?
John, assuming I understood you correctly then, and frequently
previously, are you are of the view that no advice should be offered
to the Corporation by the At Large Advisory Committee or any of its
regional constituents on the necessity for retaining the public
interest as informing allocation policy because ICANN should not
attempt to influence NRO and its RIR member allocation policies?
Michele, do you hold the view that fixing an error within RIPE's
process must be uninformed by external comment on the public interest
issues in the stewardship of unique endpoint identifiers? If so, would
you then view the stewardship of address blocks outside of RIPE's
responsibility something which, necessarily, RIPE's process, while
fixing such an error, must be uninformed by?
With respect to both of you I continue to suggest that it is within
the responsibility of the At Large bylaws entity to advise not just on
unique endpoint identifier policy arising from the GNSO, but also from
the ASO, from the point of view that there are public interests in the
coordination of globally unique endpoint identifiers, and that this
advisory responsibility can be met as disinterestedly (that is, fully
informed of the issues, not fully engaged in the process) as the Board
itself when it acts from time to time on the advice it is offered.
In simple terms, for others not acquainted with the problem, the
advice "Selling the last IPv4 block to the highest bidding spammer is
not consistent with the public interest." could be offered to the
I make no claims to the utility of the Board's action upon the receipt
of such advice. However, it seems likely that the Board will _not_
consider advice _not_ offered when considering the issue.
Is silence on the question, even when issue creep and turf issues are
granted, in the public interest?
Regards to you both,
More information about the NA-Discuss