j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
I find it really quite amusing that you should think that particular comment was related in any way to ARIN's "appropriate rejection" ('appropriate' is, I suspect, in the eye of the beholder) of Depository's request to access ARIN's bulk whois data. In actuality, I was referencing Paul's entertaining article (which Owen so kindly provided) and, looking forward, BGPSEC+RPKI/ICANN policy. As I mentioned in the note you responded to, I figure new entrants will actually be better off not having to deal with the inherited crap that's in the existing RIR databases.
I also find it interesting to ponder whether your response corroborates my view that we've entered the phase where "incumbent monopolies and their supporters attempt to actively discourage use of new disruptive entrants". I'm sure others reading your response (and ARIN's reaction to Depository's request) will make up their own minds if they care.
As to whether changes should occur "without first having corresponding global discussion", I wonder if King Canute's advisors posed similar objections as the tide came in. While I might agree that such discussions would be desirable:
a) This issue has been in front of us for some time now and as far as I'm aware, those "global" discussions have not to date occurred or even started. b) Where those discussions should occur is an interesting question given a slight bias inherent in the existing structures (e.g., two ICANN board members being appointed by the RIRs, the ASO being entirely composed by the RIRs, etc.) c) The cynical might view ARIN's demands that there be "global" discussions (with pre-conditions no less) before any changes occur as a not-so-subtle delaying/derailing tactic. d) The tide is already lapping at your ankles.
You really might want to re-read Mike's response to Owen in this thread.
On Aug 18, 2011, at 2:58 PM, John Curran wrote:
On Aug 18, 2011, at 5:13 PM, David Conrad wrote:
The nice thing about history is that it allows you to see exactly what mistakes people will keep repeating.
As evidenced by Paul's ACM article (which is amusing on many levels), I believe we're now in the phase where the incumbent monopolies and their supporters attempt to actively discourage use of new disruptive entrants.
If the above statement is a reference to ARIN, then it is factually incorrect. ARIN's position on evolving the Internet registry system is on record in our 2 March 2011 letter to Rod Beckstrom of ICANN http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/curran-to-beckstrom-02mar11-en.pdf, where I note:
"Despite ARIN’s appropriate rejection of the Depository request, I would ask that ICANN carefully review the Depository correspondence and consider the issues it raises with respect to the evolution of the Internet number registry system. While ARIN and the other Regional Internet Registries are obligated to follow the framework agreed to in ICP-2 and related guidelines such as the IETF’s RFC 2050, the structure of the Internet number registry system is substantially unchanged since inception. This stability in design is certainly a valued feature given the instrumental role of the Internet number registry system in reliable Internet operations, but may not be the optimum structure in light of the many changes taking place in the Internet today (including IPv4 depletion & IPv6 transition, internationalization of Internet multi-stakeholder oversight, and ongoing developments in cyber security.) ARIN would welcome an opportunity to participate in any and all discussions regarding how to best evolve the Internet number registry system, and would consider ICANN instrumental in leading such discussions in forums globally as appropriate."
I understand that others may not actually research their statements with respect to Internet governance matters, but please don't give credence to those remarks by not verifying your facts first.
It is possible that discussion of introducing competition to the Internet Registry System could lead to profound changes (e.g. multiple competing global registries, or central registries in each region with multiple competing "registrars" , or a central registry system and multiple globally operating "registrars") or perhaps it might result in no change at all. It is not possible to know the output of a global discussion of these matters beforehand, but by definition the Internet community is entitled to discussion of any and all structures for this global system.
ARIN does not believe that any changes to the structure of the Internet registry system should happen without first having corresponding global discussion, as the changes are disruptive by their very nature and their introduction has global impact. If you have a example where ARIN is somehow discouraging discussion of changes to the Internet registry system, then please bring it directly to my attention, as we quite willing to evolve as long as there is global multi-stakeholder discussion of the changes first, with a result that reflects the public interest in this area.
Thank you, /John
John Curran President and CEO ARIN