[ga-full] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are they represented?

["!Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>]

response below ..

On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 mike.norris@heanet.ie wrote:

> 
> > I am increasingly concerned that the ASO has no means of representing
> > indivudual ipv4 holders.  The virtual infrastructure is represented, but
> > those people who operate the ipv4 structure (ipv4 holders) have no
> > representation whatsoever in the "bottoms up" ICANN process.
> >
> > Am i wrong in making this conclusion?
> 
> The ASO structure is built on the RIRs (regional Internet registries), which
> it
> represents.  In Europe, the RIR is RIPE NCC, which is owned by its members
> i.e.
> all those who receive IP registry services from it (the ipv4, and ipv6,
> holders).
> These members, and others, attend open RIPE meetings three times a year and
> this
> forum is used to discuss and form policy, and to elect ASO representatives.
> In
> this way, address holders have a real involvement in regional policy
> formation
> and representation at the global level.

OK - I was not aware of that with respect to RIPE.  I anticipate you are a
member of RIPE, and that RIPE keeps you informed on this - however - ny
ipv4 registries are via ARIN, and I have never been invited to participate
in any vote, and have never received notice from ARIN on ICANN
issues.  I'm not happy with that.

I am also unhappy with the fact that no one has remembered to setup a
separate constituency for ipv4 holders.  I personally do not feel
comfortable being represented by ARIN.  I want other ipv4 holders to have
their say and a means of interacting and participating with each other and
having real direct input.  At this time in accordance with the existing
structure - any representation I may have is non existent.  ARIN never
asks nor solicits my opinion, and I don't have the opportunities of
ownership evident in RIPE.

I'd also be interested to know how the APNIC people participate, if that
registry is directly owned by the members - like RIPE.

> In addition, ICANN's membership structure (http://members.icann.org) is open
> to
> **all** members of the Internet community and offers a broad and global
> channel
> for input and representation in Internet governance.

That's not acceptable Mike.  I think it's clear to most in the community
that the @large membership is quickly becoming an unacceptable farce and
has received considerable negative international attention.  Including a
boycott of the proceeding by President Mubarak of Egypt.

Also - ipv4 owners have considerably different interests then ICANN's
@large membership.

So - because of these reasons I don't find that avenue acceptable.

It's becoming obvious to me that a whole group of important community
members have been forgotten.

Regards
Joe Baptista


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html