On 21/10/2008, at 4:29 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
I understand your position there, but you haven't answered my question: who/what do you think is in a better position than the RIRs to do so?
I think you are saying "I want you to show me your concept of The Complete Solution."
I am saying "In my view the registry function in and of itself is incapable of carrying the load of The Complete Solution, whatever that may be - if you overload the registry with contrived constraints on how one can make changes in the registry you simply motivate the creation of alternate registries, and then rather than having a valuable and useful registry for the IPv4 Internet you have, well, fatal confusion. There are many good and compelling reasons to get over this IPv4 exhaustion thing and deploy IPv6, but I'm personally not keen on an approach that includes destruction of the integrity of the entire address registry structure as a major milestone."
It should be pretty clear that your question was not a question I was addressing. I'm not even sure that I can - when you look at the extraordinary breath of the global Internet industry, the massive diversity and size of the interests that are bought to bear on it, the diverse motivations and perceptions of value, the range of stakeholders and the manner of their interaction and the evolving roles and responsibility of regulatory measures in this environment, its pretty clear that we are within a rather complex system. I personally would be very skeptical of any claim of complete understanding of this environment, but maybe thats just me!
At which point I've already gone past acceptable levels of brevity in mail, and way past my personal quota of posts - my sincere apologies for this.
GeoffDisclaimer: Who am I? Oh right, I'm me! And thats who I'm speaking for!