[ICANN-EU] Re: [aso-policy] Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

TO Mr. Snodon
Mr. Karl Auerbach and Mr. Andy Muller Maguhn,
and all icann-europe, icann-candidate,

I whish to alert all of you on the ASO situation.  This is a typical case
where @large involvement is of the utmost importance. Without any
discussion, ASO has published a recommendation to the ICANN about
the introduction of new RIRs (regional authorities to allocate IP addresses).

This document:

-  does not take into account out of seemingly real ignorance of about
    business, social, technical etc... reality the importance of the IP
    addressing scheme and it impact upon privacy, social organization,
    day to day life through the Internet convergence with telephone,
    media etc...
-  introduces several points which conflicts with other visions of the
    Internet.

You will find here a very interesting response from M. Sondon
(from International Congress of Independent Internet Users (ICIIU)
to a message I sent to him while dialoguing on that issue.

I would recommend @large users to join the ASO ML in sending a mail
to containing "subscribe aso-policy" to majordomo@aso.icann.org.

This issues are complex (protocol) but it simple to understand the impact
when you recall that your portable IP address will be used to replace
your credit card number, be used to crypt your mails, tell everyone
where your portable or your car is, identify your appliances for
automatic services, be used for page censorship, serve as your
identification on Echelon like services and be an invisible replacement
for many cookies, etc,, etc... as well as to route calls on the Internet,
and this most probably for centuries...
Jefsey Morfin


At 03:06 30/10/00, you wrote:
>Mr. Morfin-
>You wrote:
> > I suppose this situation you describe both results from the lack of
> > understanding of the importance of the involved issues by the @large
> > members and the perfect understanding by some of those thinking
> > having an industrial interest in managing them to their own benefit.
>
>There is a knowledge gap. And it is not easy for those who have been
>the purveyors of the knowledge to share it with others.
>
> > I believe that to the contrary, the important of the IP addressing
> > plan makes of the best interest of every concerned parties that the
> > largest number of stakeholders may contribute. As an active @large
> > member from France, I certainly desire to see @large people to
> > become more involved in these matters.
>
>It is important for that to happen. I think that the new @large
>directors, if they are made aware of the ASO proposals and
>discussion, will help to bring @large members into it. But they must
>first be made aware of the need for their intervention and for the
>broadening of this process.
>
> > I am interested to know if you are an experience person in this and
> > if you have an establish doctrine we might support.
>
>I am not an experienced person in the realm of IP address
>allocation. I do know that the present system, if it can be called
>that, is the historical outgrowth of allocation by fiat, and that
>the present registries were created by a small core of those people
>who created the Internet. I also know, from ISPs I have dealt with,
>that the criteria and economics of address allocation have not been
>decided through a representative process of those who use the
>addresses, but by those with a seniority claim to that authority. It
>seems clear, then, that the creation of new registries, at a time
>when the Internet is growing up to its future role in the world,
>needs to be done in a new and more inclusive fashion.
>
> > My own opinion
> > is that the priority is for common people to clearly understand what
> > is at stake, to study the impact in their own field and to jointly
> > develop a working protocol to make an inventory of their requests so
> > operations, technology, every industry, privacy, media convergences,
> > administrative, political and legal, etc.. points of views may be 
> considered
> > otherwise the impacts and the costs of the patches in the coming
> > decades and centuries will be dramatic.
>
>Planning ahead, opening up to the feedback and influence of users,
>and entering into a decision-making process based on multilateral
>dialogue certainly do seem to make good sense.
>
> > This call for comments is obviously sent to all the @large Members
> > of this list. I will take an example: I would be interested in comments
> > about the impact and the cost of the recent ARIN suggestion about
> > CNAMES.
>
>I'm sure that this and other issues would benefit immensely from a
>broad dialogue.
>
> > Some paragraphs in the proposed document for new RIRs seem
> > to lead to very important changes in the Internet management
> > which IMHO should be publicly debated in the press? Please
> > correct me if I am wrong.
>
>It may not be possible yet for the broader public that reads the
>non-specialist press to appreciate the issues, but perhaps the
>specialist Internet press could be usefully involved. At any rate,
>there is now a broader-based community involved in the Internet
>governance process, through the @large membership, and they
>certainly should be given the opportunity to discuss the issues.
>
>M. Sondow