[172445] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jun 19 07:21:49 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <21410.343.738034.2737@world.std.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 04:01:21 -0700
To: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
ICANN !=3D a good sampling of number resource issues or concerns.
As you noticed, the whole mess with domain names and their IP issues
is the monetary tail that wags the ICANN dog. ICANN barely pays =
attention
to number resources and when they do, it=92s primarily to do whatever =
has
been agreed upon by the policy processes in the various RIRs.
This is actually a good thing and we should seek to preserve this fact
after ICANN loses its =93adult supervision=94.
Owen
On Jun 18, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
>=20
> Not to mix this up but one of the main reasons I attended ICANN
> meetings over several years was an interest in the IPv4/IPv6
> transition.
>=20
> To say interest was sparse is an under, er, over statement.
>=20
> There was a good session on legacy IPs, a topic more than marginally
> related, in Toronto in fall 2012, a few people here were there.
>=20
> Really, I can list them like that.
>=20
> I'd sit in on the "ISP" sessions, for years, but when they weren't
> talking about how to fill out travel reimbursement reports (Brussels)
> they were mostly talking about site takedowns for intellectual
> property violations and similar, very similar, trademark issues and
> domains, etc.
>=20
> In a nutshell the whole TLD thing and other registry/registrar and
> closely related business issues so dominated discussions it drowned
> everything else out about 99%.
>=20
> If I'd bring it up, shouldn't we be discussing what we can do as an
> organization about IPv4/IPv6?, I'd usually get a 1,000 mile stare like
> who let this guy in? I remember once being cut off with "oh, CGN will
> solve that (Sydney)."
>=20
> I realize RIRs are more directly involved in many ways but this should
> be, in my opinion, a high-priority global internet governance policy
> issue with RIRs implementing or enjoying the results, not driving the
> issue, or only as much as they can.
>=20
> Then again vis a vis ICANN you can say this about almost any issue not
> directly related to registry/registrar business matters.
>=20
>=20
> TL;DR: I think there's an exposure and public awareness problem, even
> with those who are chartered with being interested.
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> -Barry Shein
>=20
> The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | =
http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, =
Canada
> Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 =
*oo*
