[discuss] Government Engagement model [2 of 2] (was: Re: IPv6 Deployment and IG)

Fri Dec 27 22:55:30 UTC 2013

Folks - 

As an example of trying to improve engagement with governments towards constructive 
outcomes on Internet issues, I am going to revisit the Country Internet Registry 
question, but attempt to express some potential motivations that could have been 
behind the question... This is the type of discussion that one would probably never
have been able to have in the multilateral intergovernmental forum that was available, 
and would be unlikely to attempt to bring to the IETF or the RIRs (unless one is 
particularly brave...)   Instead, on behalf of governments everywhere, I will try to
hypothetically bring this topic to 1net for consideration.  Given the hypothetical 
perspective from which this is based, I ask leave of the list to consider the 
following text to be on behalf of the Minister of Telecom of a Hypothetical 
(but outspoken) Country - 

=== Begin written remarks

  Distinguished 1net Participants - 

  I have come to 1net today to express the urgent desire for establishing
  Country-based Internet Registries for IPv6, as without these my country 
  will not be able to properly perform several functions related to our 
  sovereign rights and responsibilities.  In particular, we require 
  country-based IPv6 Internet registries so that we can do one or more 
  of the following activities in fulfillment of certain important public 
  policy obligations -

   A) To be able to appropriately license ISPs operating within our country - 
      By having a having country-based IPv6 registry, we can require that 
      ISPs in our country make use of that registry and only issue address space
      to those providers which meet our necessary licensing provisions.

   B) Similarly, licensing ISPs is viewed as a potentially significant 
      source of revenue; this is a source of revenue badly to needed
      to offset other effects of the Internet on our country receipts.

   C) We also desire that all users in our country be on one distinct
      IPv6 prefix, so that we can filter out everyone else from reaching
      our important in-country government resources and servers.

   D) We also desire that all users and websites in certain other countries 
      be on their own IPv6 prefix, so we can filter out reachability to 
      them from users in our country.

   E) We need to have a country-based Internet registry to be able to do
      better validation of entities (ISPs, organizations) receiving IPv6 
      addresses than can be done by an external, non-government endorsed
      entity 

   F) We desire the ability to establish different policies for allocation
      in our country, although not in contradiction to regional or global
      policies.

   G) We desire the ability to establish different policies for allocation
      in our country, in particular the assignment of global IPv6 addresses
      to each user to provide portability of them between providers

   H) We desire the ability to establish different policies for allocation
      in our country, in particular the assignment of global IPv6 addresses
      to each user to provide for improved tracking of all their activity

   I) We must have a country-based Internet registry because we cannot
      have any dependence on any entities outside of our country for 
      such an important function as allocation of Internet addresses. 

I thank the 1net community for your prompt consideration of this matter.

  Honorable Minister, Hypothetical Country.

=== end written remarks

Would we ever get such frank statement of goals from any government?  Quite
unlikely, but (if we were more receptive) we might easily receive some lengthy
remarks that could be parsed to obtain the equivalent of one or more objectives
such as those listed above.  

The fact is that some of these objectives are probably achievable (E & F) have
been achieved on a limited basis in the past via national Internet registry
efforts) although there are tradeoffs involved, others have technical issues
(A, C, D, G, H), and some of them do not align with principles and values held
by other stakeholders (B, D, H, I)...  The fact is, if we knew what exactly
the problem was, it would be possible to have a rational discussion of whether 
country-based Internet registries solved that problem, with what side-effects,
and whether there was any better alternatives.

None of that discussion has occurred to date, because we never provided an
open environment for discussion and never received a clear statement of the
problem(s) that country-based Internet registries were supposed to solve.
Making it easier for governments to come forth with their Internet issues 
and conduct an open constructive in-depth dialogue on neutral ground may not 
actually solve any of the problems, but will go a long way to improving 
everyone's understanding of the issues involved.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.  No Minister of Hypothetical Country exists.