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

Views expressed below are purely personal.

Since the ITU is basically the voice of the UN on telecoms, I think these ITU proposals to be created mean that the UN has recognized the fact that they can pry control over ICANN out of the USA's cold dead hands. So now they try it a step lower and try to impose their nation centric model on the RIR's. If there is any way for members to assist RIPE and the NRO with convincing the ITU not to proceed this way I'd like to hear it.

I fail to see any merit in the stated terms of reference. 

-reserving a large IPv6 block.
Considering the size of the IPv6 adress space there will be no shortage in the forseeable future. If IPv6 adresses eventually do run out it will impact the entire internet and a new adressing scheme will have to be rolled out by all. Keeping developing nation on IPv6 at that time will not be beneficial to them. Just as staying with IPv4 now won't benefit anyone. So a reservation has no benefit.

-'equitable access' to IPv6 resource by countries
Nothing is preventing countries to register one of their governmental or regulatory bodies as LIR and have access to IPv6 resources. The current allocation policies already take care of the equitable access part.

-ITU to become another Internet Registry
The ITU political top down policy development process is not compatible with the current internet policy framework. Also all regions are already covered by RIR's and there is no argument that those are not adeqate for their task. 

-implementing the CIR [Country Internet Registry] model
See equitable access. Countries can already do this and get adress space on (motivated) demand. They can also take part in policy development on equal footing with the rest of the internet community.

Regards,

Michiel


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] Namens Mark Barber
Verzonden: vrijdag 26 februari 2010 12:16
Aan: Smales, Robert; members-discuss at ripe.net
Onderwerp: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group

Ok, so if we are all in agreement that the ITU should not become a registrar, certainly all of the people I have discussed this with feel the same way. 

Basically everyone is happy with the way it is and cannot see any sensible need for the proposed kind change suggested.

So.......

Forgive me for my ignorance, but what do we do next, what happens next. Is there going to be a vote?

How much control over OUR internet do we really have ??


Mark Barber
Brightstar Ltd.



-----Original Message-----
From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Smales, Robert
Sent: 26 February 2010 10:27
To: members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: RE: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group

Me too.

What standing has the ITU-T in the IP world? In the OSI model, sureley the ITU-T is purely layer 1?

What I don't understand is how the ITU-T is going to get its hands on IPv6 space to hand out to its national telco members. If APNIC/LACNIC/AFRINIC don't allocate space to them, what exactly could the ITU-T do about it? If they pass this proposal, how is it going to be enforced?

I also don't understand the rationale of the proposal - which developing country has been told that the IPv6 pool isn't big enough to meet its foreseeable needs? The Internet community has managed the run-out of IPv4, may not be perfect but there is a plan, and if IPv6 space shows any sign of running out, there is no reason to suppose that IPv7 will not be developed (256-bit address space anyone?).

Robert

Robert Smales                                                
Technical Engineer
Cable&Wireless Worldwide
www.cw.com                              


> -----Original Message-----
> From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net
> [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of Dennis Lundstrom
> Sent: 26 February 2010 09:55
> To: members-discuss at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC 
> Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
> 
> 
> I Have to agree with the rest of you. an ITU driven registry makes no 
> sense. It just adds confusion and administrative/juridical problems.
> As for development in third world countries. I think the current model 
> is better adapted, since It's centered on technology and 
> infrastructure. As well as open standards.
> Not directly linked with commercial interests at mind. With the ITU in 
> the game, the balance of power over the cornerstones of the internet, 
> might very well move in behind closed doors.
> I fear this might also enable some telco:s to create commercial 
> monopolies in some local markets. Inhibiting fair competition, leading 
> to overpriced, low capacity services for the end-users.
> 
> Also there is no real reason behind the claim?
> Why does not the current model work for the ITU?  And in what way is 
> an establishment of an new register justified?
> 
> BR.
> 
> --Dennis Lundström
>    Adamo Europe S.L
> 
> 
> On Feb 25, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Adam Waite wrote:
> 
> > 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.   
> > 
> > ---- 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. 
> 
> ----
> 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. 

This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange 

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies.
 
Cable and Wireless plc
Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ

----
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. 

----
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. 


==================================================================

==================================================================

Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar:
Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden.
No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message.

==================================================================