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

Arjan van der Oest wrote:
> But anyhow, don't get me wrong. I agree with all that has been said on
> why and how ITU is trying to get a grip on packet switched communication
> networks. My only point it that it might not be a bad idea to ponder on
> the subject of allowing competition between RIR's in the same
> geographical aerea and hence allow ITU to achieve the status of
> nationwide RIR.

This presumes that competition that results in providing services more
attractive (Not necessarily just lower monetary cost) to those applying
for IP addresses is a good thing - I would argue very strongly that in
fact this is something to be avoided. I can think of a few situations
where the efforts of RIPE policy groups would be thwarted by having to
"compete" with another IR. In particular, aggregation, accountability
(RIPE 2007-01!) and address space preservation policies would all come
under pressure from competition if the ITU or another body operated a
more lax policy than the existing RIRs. (Presumably, other RIRs would be
similarly affected, but I am not particularly well versed about other
RIRs policies)

I think we have to be careful here to avoid Hardin's "Tragedy of the
commons" where the needs of the individuals is put above the needs of
the whole. The current system, which is heavily influenced by Service
Providers who are the primary stakeholders both commercially and
technically in this works well. It's not ideal - one of my pet gripes is
that the PI Address Space system often gets overlooked as end users that
require SP independence have little voice, plus there's an obvious
problem with developing nations coming late to the party and getting a
smaller piece of the IPv4 pie but IPv6 hopefully fixes that anyway. I
still feel it's better than trying to arrange competition.