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

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Fri Dec 27 23:12:17 UTC 2013


I must say, during my years in the Routing Research Group (RRG) during 
which we failed to ever find the way to solve the routing crisis (we 
thought there was one then, we seem to have acclimated since), we never 
even thought to approach it from this sort of problem set perspective.

I wonder what the result would have been of taking this problem set as a 
research problem.


On 27-Dec-13 17:55, John Curran wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the discuss mailing list