[At-Large] Depository (was Re: Privacy and domain abuse vs the IP constituency)
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Sun May 8 15:23:57 UTC 2011
> on that note, there IS a "proposal" sent to ICANN (altho not via
> normal channels) to create "IP address registrars" AND make them
> subject to the same kind of rules that domain registrars must follow:
> Not sent via normal channels, as they don't think they will get a fair
> hearing from the ASO:
> I imagine At-Large might want to weigh in on this at some point?
My view, having followed this on the ARIN-PPML list from its
inception, is that the substance of this "proposal" is not in the
public interest, nor is the process pursued by claimed by its
advocates, correctly defined as "getting a fair hearing".
Like myself, McTim (<dogwallah at gmail.com>) has commented on the thread
begun by a "free market, anti-government, anti-pseudo-government"
poster Mike Burns (<mike at nationwideinc.com>), who in addition to
advocacy of this particular issue for frankly ideological reasons,
imagines that ICANN is the "higher authority" to which some appeal can
be made to overturn the policies of the regional address registries.
Of course, the Depository correspondence (David Olive et seq.) does
not necessarily share Mr. Burns' motivation, as the pecuniary interest
of Depository in acquiring a franchise for address registry services
Broadly, Burns, and Depository, seek to replicate the structure of the
domain names market in v4 addresses. In my view, this is not a
desirable transformation of the management of v4 addresses, which
despite significant self-interest advocacy retains "good stewardship"
properties absent in almost all* of the domain names market.
* The .cat, .coop and .museum name space operators, and perhaps
others, and the respective primary registrars exhibit "good stewardship".
More information about the At-Large