[120400] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Chinese bgp metering story
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred Baker)
Fri Dec 18 15:27:49 2009
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOC.4.61.0912181159270.5788@paixhost.pch.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:27:02 -0800
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
My sense is that the ITU has played with such ideas in the past, and
the governments have for the most part found it in their interest to
not screw with the Internet.
Do you have any specific recommendations on how to keep that true?
On Dec 18, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>>> The decision on that will mostly be made in mid-March.
>> By whom?
>
> A working group of the ITU Council.
>
>> The RIRs aren't just going to say, "OK, ITU folks, it's all yours,"
>> heh.
>
> Indeed not. However, the RIRs don't have a voice in the decision.
> This
> is an intergovernmental decision within the ITU Council. If the ITU
> Council were to decide that it's a good idea for the ITU to take
> over IP
> addressing and break it, they would then take it to the ITU
> Plenipotentiary. At that point, it could become policy of the treaty
> organization, and then member country governments would become bound
> to
> support the policy in their own legal structures. Odds are that
> would be
> expressed in laws similar to that of Korea, where it's illegal for
> network
> operators to get IP addresses from APNIC, their RIR, and they must
> instead
> get them from KRNIC, a Korean governmental agency. Which, in turn,
> proxies their votes in the APNIC elections, but that's another
> story. :-)
>
> -Bill
>
>
http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
