This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Malcolm Hutty
malcolm at linx.net
Mon Mar 26 15:21:08 CEST 2018
On 26/03/2018 13:06, Jim Reid wrote: > This is a remarkably bad idea. It’s also likely to be unworkable. > > First, it’s not clear what problem (if any) this proposed new RIR would solve. Where’s the use case(s)? What are the requirements and why aren’t these being met by the existing RIR system? Each RIR produces address allocation policies which meet the needs of their respective communities. Have these somehow become defective? And if the regional policy in LACNIC (say) isn’t working for that part of the world, why can’t that be fixed directly without introducing this new (allegedly virtual) RIR and all the extra complexity that will create? > > Second, how will policies for this new RIR be created/implemented/maintaines/decided? How will they be aligned with those of the existing RIRs? How/when does an RIR decide to use this new RIR's address resources instead of its own to handle a request from an LIR? > > Third, why will addresses from this proposed new RIR be “better” than those issued by the existing RIRs? What makes these addresses “special”? Who needs them? Why? > > Fourth, why would an LIR choose to pay more for these “special” addresses instead of just using the ones it’s already got from its RIR? > > Fifth, this proposal has great potential for unnecessary mission creep, adding more moving parts, forum shopping and so on. All very good points. All I can really add is to amplify on point 2: Proposing the creation of a "global registry" isn't really about saying "Let's have a GIR too". That's the simple bit. The real meat of proposing a GIR is saying "let's have a new institution, that has - THIS structure - THIS funding model - THIS secretariat/support/NCC equivalent - THIS type of PDP - THIS model for who participates in the PDP (both in theory and practice) etc. Until you have a proposal (at least in outline) for what that looks like, you don't *have* a proposal at all, just a vague idea of address management by Coca-Cola*. Malcolm * classical reference. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]