[discuss] we need to fix what may be broken

Sat Apr 19 05:04:09 UTC 2014

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Apr 2014 03:02, "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs at afilias.info> wrote:
>
> Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
> Pardon my ignorance here but,
>
> Why can't the RIR's add a small fee to the cost of each address block and
use the funds for education &
> Evangelistic outreach.
>
Well I won't say they have added a few but I can confirm AfriNIC doing
quite a lot of education and outreaches. Which is the best they can do as I
earlier Alluded to.

> Why put that burden on somebody else ?
>
> Given the numbers of addresses issued a small fee would not be material
and would most probably
> raise a substantial amount of "evangelistic funds" (avoiding the use of
the term "marketing" here) which could be allocated to regional registries
in a manner that was most efficient to enhance awareness .
>
I think adding a fee for that purpose is already putting the burden on
someone else ;)

Cheers!
> Just my 2 cents here
>
>
>
> On 4/18/2014 4:40 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 18, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Since the RIRs are contractual entities of ICANN,
>>
>> There might be some disagreement with this statement.
>>
>>> and anyone might
>>> decide to engage in industry missionary work I don't see how one can
>>> say it's beyond ICANN's ability.
>>
>> During the Singapore ICANN meeting, I suggested that ICANN should spend
as much on IPv6 (and BCP38) evangelism as they spend on new gTLD
evangelism.  I don't think my suggestion was taken seriously. However,
beyond cheerleading, I'm uncertain what ICANN can do.
>>
>>> IPv4 addresses have not run out.
>>
>> Right - how can a 32-bit integer run out? What has largely "run out" is
the free pool of relatively policy-unconstrained unallocated IPv4
addresses. The canonical URL for information about the free pool is
http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html.
>>
>>> The average user won't notice until s/he is denied an address.
>>
>> The average user will notice either an increase in price or a
degradation of service.  The price increase will be due to ISPs passing on
the cost of having to obtain addresses on the market, deploy really
expensive CGN, or deploy IPv6. All three have a cost: it remains to be seen
which is lowest. The degradation of service will result from multiple
layers of NAT the average (non-IPv6) user will need to traverse.  Whether
that degradation of service is sufficient to drive IPv6 adoption also
remains to be seen.
>>
>>> For example one controversial issue in the RIR space is the creation
>>> and (if yes) management of orderly secondary IPv4 markets.
>>>
>>> This seems bigger than something each RIR should just proceed with
>>> independently. ICANN is their common denominator for policy.
>>
>> Not really since this implies a top-down model. ICANN does not control
RIR policy.  While I might agree secondary IPv4 markets are bigger than
something each RIR should proceed with independently, there currently does
not exist any mechanism by which that issue can be addressed (pun
intended). As some folks on this list can tell you, this is a topic I've
beat my head against for more than a decade.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -drc
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140419/67519b87/attachment.html>