Subject: Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] General purpose number registries & policy engagement

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:17:50 +0200

At 16:29 21/10/2014, Leslie Daigle (TCE) wrote:
>I think, for someone who is not as well-versed in the current 
>understandings and expectations between the RIRs and the IETF as you 
>are, the difference in the two statements is who determines the fate 
>of any address space not in identified specialized sub-registries.
>
>The first statement says that all address space that is not listed 
>as an IETF sub-registry is general address space for allocation via 
>the Internet Number Registry System.
>
>The second says that the IETF will identify what space is up for 
>allocation via the Internet Number Registry System.   It leaves open 
>the question of whether (portions of) that space might become 
>special-purpose, handed to the Internet Number Registry System in 
>the future, or what.

The question is to know if IPv6 addresses are common goods (organized 
by the IETF and managed by ICANN), an ITEF Trust or an ICANN 
property. In order to push forn an IPvITU International Number 
Registry Sysem being created in order to adress specific sovereign 
requirements and the fact that the NTIA has only indicated its intent 
to transfer DNS responsibilities to ICANN, the second understanding 
seems advisable since it does not create any de facto monopoly and 
retrains the capacity for the IETF to allocate IPv6 addressing space 
portions along new demands.

jfc

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 18:14:06 +0200

At 22:24 21/10/2014, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>In fact this is one of the basic principles that keep the rest of 
>the system coherent.

What actually keeps the system "coherent" (I would say "closed") is 
that the ISPs chose that their routers support TCP/IP + accept the 
RIR addressing plan. Obviously, this is for marketing and political 
reasons (these people are nationally incorporated corporations). In 
addition, any political decision to do otherwise or innovation that 
would permit them to do more (support other technologies, other 
addressing plans) might meet license (BCP 78) problems and IANA use 
political/compatibility issues. This protects "status-quo" of the 
unachieved architecture

Under that circumstance, the IETF Trust ownership is an advisable 
do-no-better makeshift until BCP78 is replaced by a CC BY SA licence 
or a chinese wall big work simplifies the way to use the world 
digital infrastructure in publishing a Free Wolrd Digital Reference 
Book with Catenet, Internet, Interplus, Brainware layers parts and 
online acess to updated tables.

Things take time. 30 years of strategic status quo ...
jfc