j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
On 19/08/2011, at 4:34 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Aug 18, 2011, at 4:53 PM, John Curran wrote:
With respect to registry services, you referenced the incumbents as discouraging change, and that easily could be construed as a reference to ARIN.
I claimed "I believe we're now in the phase where the incumbent monopolies and their supporters attempt to actively discourage use of new disruptive entrants" and that I saw parallels with how PTT monopolies behaved in the past. I'll let others interpret my statement (and your responses) as they like.
I for one read this as referring to the RIRs - it's hard to see what else it could refer to.
I think the parallels you draw are entirely wrong. The RIRs are bottom-up policy organisations in their very nature. Whatever faults they have in their policies come largely because that process inherently reflects the foibles of the participating stakeholders, not from the arrogance of those in charge. The PTT monopolies on the other hand were as far from bottom-up as it is possible to be. They were the worst examples of a top-down, command economy, with all the problems that brings.
What the RIRs suffer from is a lack of diversity among participating stakeholders. I would love to describe them as truly multi-stakeholder, but the reality is that numbering, unlike domain names, is one step removed from most people and so far fewer people are directly impacted enough to engage in policy development.
Prescribing commercial competition as a medicine to tackle the RIR faults is missing this point and likely to harm the numbering space by eliminating the bottom-up policy determination. We should instead be looking at what faults the current narrow engagement leads to and showing some leadership in addressing them through the bottom-up policy process, while simultaneously working to broaden engagement so that the RIRs become truly multi-stakeholder.