[address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"

Hi,

Some comments.

It's good to have new kind of IR, not for requesting resources, but for
managing them and keep things in order.

Current RIRs are old enough, too bureaucratic, old school and so on.
Also you don't need to take care about new GIR if you prefer to stay
with your local RIR.

Ability to make new IR will push on RIRs to make better services and
less members fees.

New IR will make more possibilities for new database management.
Because current RIRs keep there databases in not optimal way because
those databases keeps there structure from the time Internet was born.
They are old enough, but they are too heavy to be rebuild-ed.

It's a good opportunity to create something new, useful for ISP and
their customers.

Of couse this database should be redistributed and protected globally.


Juri



On 26.03.2018 15:28, Martin Huněk wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Dne pondělí 26. března 2018 13:35:47 CEST, Staff napsal(a):
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> On 26.03.2018 2:56, Max Tulyev wrote:
>>> If this GIR runs parallel to existing RIRs and in competition with all
>>> them - that's a very good idea, I support it.
>>
>> Another one IR is good idea and should be created.
>>
>> GIR with RIRs - this is good idea too. GIR should be created and be
>> independent. And members of RIR should have ability where to have there
>> resources support.
>>
>> I support.
> 
> I don't think that it is such a good idea. First of all, I can see the problem 
> of such organizations which resident in multiple RIR regions, however I do 
> think that I can be solved by bilateral agreement between current RIRs, rather 
> than creating "GIR" (something between IANA and current RIRs.
> 
> I can also see that someone might see it as an opportunity to get yet another 
> resources, which they cannot from current RIRs. However there is no more IPv4 
> in IANA pool, so we would have to talk about IPv6 only "GIR" with only 32b ASN 
> (in contrast with LACNIC policy text). And when I look at IPv6 policies at 
> RIPE region (at least), there are quite open-minded with their allocation 
> size.
> 
> So do we really need yet another RIR? In my opinion No. It would solve just 
> marginal problem which does have simpler solution.
> 
> The solution might be an Inter-RIR status (e.g. source: RIPE-INTER-RIR) based 
> upon agreement between LIR and multiple RIRs (in which case the resources 
> would be assigned/allocated from one of them).
> 
> Example:
> 1) AfriNIC based LIR would like to operate part of its network in RIPE region
> 2) LIR asks AfriNIC for approval to operate outside of RIR region and provides 
> documentation with reasoning and corresponding RIR in which region LIR would 
> like to operate
> 3) AfriNIC decides if the LIR's proposal is fine.
> 4) AfriNIC asks RIPE: Is it OK? May that LIR in this case operate this network 
> in your region?
> 4) If both RIRs agrees on LIR's proposal, the AfriNIC marks LIR's resources 
> accordingly (like moving it to separate DB or something like operates in: 
> RIPE)
> 
> Certainly no RIR would volunteer their IPv4 pool to new "GIR" as LACNIC 
> proposal suggest and there is no more "global" IPv4 pool available...
> 
> Sincerely
> Martin Hunek
>