[governance] Substance: What issues should the WGIG focus on?

[Milton Mueller]

And you can't get "a single IP address" from any RIR. Perhaps you
can from an ISP (I have never tried). The critical constraint here,
which few people seem to understand, is the need for route
aggregation. In other words, ISPs must be given their addresses
in contiguous number blocks so that they can reduce the number of
routes identified in their routing tables by lumping those contiguous
addresses together into one route. That is why you can't have
IP address portability under the current system.

>>> Harold Feld <hfeld at MEDIAACCESS.ORG> 9/9/2004 2:05:15 PM >>>
My understanding from community networks here in the U.S. that ARIN
will
charge $2,500/yr for an IPv6 block.  While cheap for a business, this
is
out of the question for CWNs -- especially given the alternative of NAT
boxes.

Harold

At 01:47 PM 9/9/2004, Adam Peake wrote:
>At 11:35 AM -0400 9/9/04, Harold Feld wrote:
>>I believe that we should raise the issue of the administration of
the
>>number space within the context of the WGIG.  We should highlight
those
>>issues in number allocation that inhibit noncommercial use of the
Internet
>>and should press for examination of these policies with a goal of
changing
>>them to policies that facilitate noncommercial use.
>>
>>Similarly, competitive effects of IP address allocation should be
>>examined.  Artificially inflated prices caused by allocation policies
that
>>inhibit the development of competition hurt all users, but
noncommercial
>>users in particular.  Artificially inflated prices are essentially a
>>regressive tax on IP allocations.
>
>
>Harold,
>
>How much do RIRs charges for a single IP address, I am pretty sure
APNIC
>works out at about 1 cent / address (it might be as much as 3 cents.
US
>not AU.)  Where's the problem, with the RIR or ISP?  (I don't know,
this
>is a genuine question!)
>
>I am very interested in finding out if RIR open policy processes
work.
>Something we've discussed in other lists is how some of the early
large
>allocations (the pre 1995 blocks) might be recovered. Some people in
Japan
>have mentioned IP number portability as a problem, plenty of broadband
and
>growing home networks (I am technically clueless, but I think there
are
>kind of hard wired reasons why that's hard.)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>>Harold
>>
>>At 07:21 PM 9/8/2004, you wrote:
>>>Not sure what this means. The tendency is to allocate number space
to
>>>large players (big ISPs which then sub-allocate to smaller
comapnies
>>>etc.), with no possibility to have your own small subset of IP
space
>>>as an end user (even if you are an .org with 100 computers). Is
this
>>>what you'd like to have changed? With IPv6 this seems sort of
>>>impossible (so I am told). I think it is a pity too.
>>>
>>>On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, at 16:32 [=GMT-0400], Harold Feld wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Allow me to suggest an addition:
>>>>
>>>>  5. Access to number space in a manner that fosters non-commercial
access
>>>>  and is competitively neutral.
>>>>
>>>>  Harold Feld
>>>>
>>>>  At 11:38 AM 9/5/2004, Milton Mueller wrote:
>>>>  > >>> "William Drake" <wdrake at ictsd.ch> 9/5/2004 12:23:56 AM >>>
>>>>  > >Can we identify five to seven leading issues and
recommendations
>>>>  > >that we think are the most pressing with regard to IG?  These
can
>>>>  > >be either individual issue-areas (e.g. management of
identifiers is
>>>>  > >obviously one of them) or cross-cutting meta-level problems.
>>>>  >
>>>>  >Our forthcoming report will clarify many of these issues.
>>>>  >We (the Internet Governance Project) will be able to release
>>>>  >it in a few days. At the moment we are still subject to a
>>>>  >vetting process. Unfortunately, some of the actors are playing
>>>>  >games, either strategically refusing to comment or commenting
>>>>  >privately but telling us that they are officially "not
commenting"
>>>>  >(but still giving us some valuable insight into what they
think).
>>>>  >
>>>>  >Nevertheless, I can identify several areas that I think will
>>>>  >prove to be strategic:
>>>>  >
>>>>  >1. Relationship of Intellectual Property Protection to
>>>>  >Free Expression and Privacy.
>>>>  >I believe that certain international organizations and
>>>>  >perhaps some business interests will attempt to claim
>>>>  >that IPR is off the table, and that it has nothing to do
>>>>  >with Internet governance. Nothing could be further
>>>>  >from the truth. The Internet has forced a complete
>>>>  >revision of global copyright and trademark agreements
>>>>  >In a variety of venues, including
>>>>  >WIPO and ICANN, we see IPR protection issues
>>>>  >coming into direct contact with free expression and
>>>>  >privacy norms and even some scientific inquiry norms.
>>>>  >These issues should not be worked out exclusively
>>>>  >in arenas such as WIPO, which are historically mandated
>>>>  >to serve IPR interests and see IP owners as their
>>>>  >constituency.
>>>>  >
>>>>  >2. ICANN's status as a non-state actor.
>>>>  >This is a tricky one. ICANN is under attack on three fronts,
>>>  > >1) its basis in US Govt/law 2) its non-governmental nature
>>>  > >3) the degree to which it does "policy" as opposed to
>>>>  >"technical management" (which may be just an extension of
>>>>  >issue 2). There is no doubt that specific governments intend
>>>>  >to make an issue of this, and there is still the possibility
that
>>>>  >it will overwhelm everything else. Imho, we need to defend
>>>>  >the multi-stakeholder, non-state governance of the regime
>>>>  >against the possibility that it will become more governmental
>>>>  >and regulatory, while recognizing (critically) that ICANN
*does*
>>>>  >do policy and supporting efforts to find a model that
>>>>  >does not rely on US govt contracting. There are some even
>>>>  >deeper issues regarding the use of contracting as a global
>>>>  >governance mechanism, too much to go into here.
>>>>  >
>>>>  >3. Relationship between security/surveillance on the
>>>>  >Internet and civil liberties.
>>>>  >Here again, the narrow, issue-specific regimes focused
>>>>  >on attacking terrorism/crime tend to override other legitimate
>>>>  >concerns. We could promote a broadened dialogue
>>>>  >that forces Internet surveillance and security measures to be
>>>>  >respectful of human rights in a globally uniform way.
>>>>  >
>>>>  >4. Right to internetwork globally
>>>>  >The most fundamental issue is the hardest to convey.
>>>>  >Territorial governments must formally recognize and
>>>>  >explicitly accept the non-territorial nature of IP networking
>>>>  >and the Internet's architecture. No serious agreements about
>>>>  >Internet governance in any given area can be made until that
>>>>  >issue is dealt with. Either the potential of global networking
>>>>  >is accepted as a factual starting point, or governance
>>>>  >gravitates toward chopping it up into territorially-controlled
>>>>  >architectures and resource allocation procedures (thus
>>>>  >destroying much of the value of the Internet). It may be
>>>>  >too much to ask territorial governments to accept the
>>>>  >reality and salience of nonterritorial interconnection, but
>>>>  >that is really the choice they are faced with.
>>>>  >
>>>>  >--MM