[Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group

I agree with Neils. Nowhere in the proposal did I see any specific 
complaints about how IANA is currently administering address space; 
rather, it merely asserts that address space should be set aside to 
"[take] into consideration the future needs of developing countries", 
and vague assertions that access to IP space is currently somehow not 
"equitable".

Further, there are passages like this:
"           that it is in the public interest that IP-based networks and 
other
telecommunication networks should be both interoperable and provide, at a
minimum, the level of quality of service provided by traditional networks,
consistent with ITU-T recommendations and other recognized international
standards,     "


This all just seems like a political ploy by ITU to remain relevant by 
holding a large chunk of the address pool hostage.


Needless to say, the views above do not represent the views of anyone 
except for me.

Adam Waite



Niels Dettenbach wrote:
> Dear all here,
>
> i'm really confused by the current debate around ITUs "idea" of a secondary address registry system. From our view the internet got a huge commercialization over the last decade and many peoples seems not aware that this net got his success mainly from community driven organization and policies.
>
> My personal meaning is:
> As i remember the ITU and the telco industry traditionally got driven and leaded mainly by commercial interests and - in many countries - lobbyism of a few local peoples. 
>
> Along with the ongoing soft migration from circuit to packet switched networking even in the telco industry the ITU looses significant power and influence into the telco industry worldwide. 
>
> We are very happy with the RIPE, most RIPE policies and RIPEs work over many years and got similiar reports from users in other Registries. Wee see the independence from local country policies as a very important base for a best as possible equal treatment of all internet users.
>
> ITUs typical concept which empowers local countries to held and distribute network address ressources seems outdated and obsolete in the view of many IP and even telco users.
>
> Not only that two different system will bring up significantly more overhead for nothing. The diversification of policies will lead to many unclear juristical problems, political disputes in many levels and make an most equal treatment of all peoples as (potentially) IP users impossible on earth.
>
> Bringing the liability for IP address space to origin countries will lead to abusive policies and lobbyism within certain countries. Similiar policies as thought by the ITU still happens since decades for the distribution of satellite space segments where each country helds a dedicated segment of the geostationary satellite orbit. 
>
> There are countries which aren't using such segments byself or for their peoples - instead they rented or selled it to somewhere but the income got directed to some private pockets...
>
> I see no advantage for any of the IP users in the "new" concept from ITU which seems mainly a trial to renew their old and obsolete concepts into the IP world and to bring themselves into IP. It may help to grow lobbyism and save todays obsolete business and political concepts.
>
> Just my two cents...
> Cheers,
>
>
> Niels.
>
> Btw: sorry for my bad english...
>
> ---
> Niels Dettenbach
> LIR: de.skyway
> ND1000-RIPE
> http://www.skyway.net
> http://www.syndicat.com
>
> ---- 
> If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/
> First click on General and then click on Edit.
> At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. 
>