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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joe, Mike and all,

  I am in complete agreement with Joe on this issue and the disenfranchising
structure of the ASO.  I have voiced my opinion on this before.  I shall
do so again in greater detail.  But In essence Joe's comments are a hint
at least as to how the ASO is disinclusionary and seemingly in violation
of the ICANN bylaws, the White Paper, and the Mou.  As an IP address
holder I think I have just as much right to participate in the policy making
for IP addresses as anyone else...  Currently under the ASO structure,
I don't.  I find that to be discriminatory in nature.

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> 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

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


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