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

[mike.norris@heanet.ie]

> > > 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.

Sounds like your beef is with ARIN, and should be dealt with at that level
- that's what 'bottom up' implies.

>
> > 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.

"Those who say politics are disreputable in fact help make it so" (Vaclav
Havel)

Whatever about the interests of address holders, I'd say you have views
which would be of interest to the Internet community generally.  So why not
get involved and try to change what you see as unacceptable?

Regards.

Mike Norris

--
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