[At-Large] Depository (was Re: Privacy and domain abuse vs the IP constituency)
karl at cavebear.com
Sun May 8 16:50:45 UTC 2011
On 05/08/2011 08:23 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> 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...
I thought that the internet was a place that encouraged innovation and
Instead we seem to be turning the internet into a regulatory paradise
where nothing is to permitted except that which offends no-one, or at
least not any of the "stakeholders".
I've long held to the following as a principle to use when balancing
"public interest" against freedom to innovate:
First Law of the Internet
+ Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way
that is privately beneficial without being publicly
- The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall
be on those who wish to prevent the private use.
- Such a demonstration shall require clear and
convincing evidence of public detriment.
- The public detriment must be of such degree and extent
as to justify the suppression of the private activity.
In the case of new RIRs history and use have created a rather muddy
The RIRs were established as a technical mechanism to facilitate
allocation of IP addresses in nicely aggregated blocks.
In the pursuit of better aggregation technically there ought to have
been one RIR and one RIR only. However, politics and the recognition
that in the internet of that era that there were three primary lumps of
internet connectivity - with far lesser connections between the lumps -
caused rise of ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, each to cover one of those lumps.
In my last conversation with Jon Postel we discussed this and he
recognized and acknowledged that as connectivity changed that there
could very well arise a situation in which it would be useful to
aggregate two or more RIRs - in other words the death of a RIR was quite
in keeping with the policy of promoting IP address block aggregation.
Instead of a RIR dying, Jon died, and ICANN got into the game. And the
RIRs, realizing that ICANN made a nice shield against the inquiring eyes
of governments - bought into the game (and "bought" is the accurate word
- during my term on the ICANN bouard the RIRs prevented ICANN insolvency
by gifting about $667,000 to ICANN.)
For no technical reason, but for every political reason, ICANN - or
ICANN wagging the IANA function - created two more RIRs.
By abandoning the technical rationale for RIRs ICANN created a situation
in which there is a vacuum of principled reason - except the political
expediency and revenue generation - to determine whether to deny or
allow a proposal for a new RIR.
If, as some have argued, that IP address aggregation is no longer an
issue (an argument with which I do not agree) then there would be no
reason not to have an open ended number of RIRs.
If IP address aggregation matters then it would make sense to have fewer
rather than more RIRs - and that argument would apply as well to
existing RIRs which ought then to have to justify the technical validity
of their continued existence.
When I was at Cisco the conventional wisdom was that the internet
routing system would go boom when we hit 200,000 prefixes. We are now
nearly double that number and packet routing and route information is
still chugging along. That's good, because the RIR system does seem to
be losing its ability to coerce address block aggregation.
More information about the At-Large