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

[Marc Schneiders]

The problem I see is that there are services where a fixed IP number
is necessary. For example root servers. I have some experience in this
context. These are not promising. The small subset of IP numbers I
administrate tends to get filtered out time and again, without notice.
I have to police it myself, And then start making noise. I have no
idea who does it. I guess: computers. (To be clear: The RIRs are not
to blame!) This is about a full class C block.

The internet is a cooperation of independent businesses. These make
choices. We may not like them, but we cannot tell politicians to
change them. We have to talk to the companies...

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, at 14:52 [=GMT-0400], Milton Mueller wrote:

> 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
>