Re: [At-Large] Depository (was Re: Privacy and domain abuse vs the IP constituency)
[snip] on that note, there IS a "proposal" sent to ICANN (altho not via normal channels) to create "IP address registrars" AND make them subject to the same kind of rules that domain registrars must follow:
http://icann.org/en/correspondence/statement-ip-address-registrar-accreditat...
Not sent via normal channels, as they don't think they will get a fair hearing from the ASO:
http://icann.org/en/correspondence/holtzman-to-jeffrey-02mar11-en.pdf
I imagine At-Large might want to weigh in on this at some point?
My view, having followed this on the ARIN-PPML list from its inception, is that the substance of this "proposal" is not in the public interest, nor is the process pursued by claimed by its advocates, correctly defined as "getting a fair hearing". Like myself, McTim (<dogwallah@gmail.com>) has commented on the thread begun by a "free market, anti-government, anti-pseudo-government" poster Mike Burns (<mike@nationwideinc.com>), who in addition to advocacy of this particular issue for frankly ideological reasons, imagines that ICANN is the "higher authority" to which some appeal can be made to overturn the policies of the regional address registries. Of course, the Depository correspondence (David Olive et seq.) does not necessarily share Mr. Burns' motivation, as the pecuniary interest of Depository in acquiring a franchise for address registry services is self-evident. Broadly, Burns, and Depository, seek to replicate the structure of the domain names market in v4 addresses. In my view, this is not a desirable transformation of the management of v4 addresses, which despite significant self-interest advocacy retains "good stewardship" properties absent in almost all* of the domain names market. Eric * The .cat, .coop and .museum name space operators, and perhaps others, and the respective primary registrars exhibit "good stewardship".
On 05/08/2011 08:23 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
My view, having followed this on the ARIN-PPML list from its inception, is that the substance of this "proposal" is not in the public interest...
I thought that the internet was a place that encouraged innovation and experimentation. Instead we seem to be turning the internet into a regulatory paradise where nothing is to permitted except that which offends no-one, or at least not any of the "stakeholders". I've long held to the following as a principle to use when balancing "public interest" against freedom to innovate: First Law of the Internet http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000059.html + Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental. - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use. - Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment. - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity. In the case of new RIRs history and use have created a rather muddy situation: The RIRs were established as a technical mechanism to facilitate allocation of IP addresses in nicely aggregated blocks. In the pursuit of better aggregation technically there ought to have been one RIR and one RIR only. However, politics and the recognition that in the internet of that era that there were three primary lumps of internet connectivity - with far lesser connections between the lumps - caused rise of ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, each to cover one of those lumps. In my last conversation with Jon Postel we discussed this and he recognized and acknowledged that as connectivity changed that there could very well arise a situation in which it would be useful to aggregate two or more RIRs - in other words the death of a RIR was quite in keeping with the policy of promoting IP address block aggregation. Instead of a RIR dying, Jon died, and ICANN got into the game. And the RIRs, realizing that ICANN made a nice shield against the inquiring eyes of governments - bought into the game (and "bought" is the accurate word - during my term on the ICANN bouard the RIRs prevented ICANN insolvency by gifting about $667,000 to ICANN.) For no technical reason, but for every political reason, ICANN - or ICANN wagging the IANA function - created two more RIRs. By abandoning the technical rationale for RIRs ICANN created a situation in which there is a vacuum of principled reason - except the political expediency and revenue generation - to determine whether to deny or allow a proposal for a new RIR. If, as some have argued, that IP address aggregation is no longer an issue (an argument with which I do not agree) then there would be no reason not to have an open ended number of RIRs. If IP address aggregation matters then it would make sense to have fewer rather than more RIRs - and that argument would apply as well to existing RIRs which ought then to have to justify the technical validity of their continued existence. When I was at Cisco the conventional wisdom was that the internet routing system would go boom when we hit 200,000 prefixes. We are now nearly double that number and packet routing and route information is still chugging along. That's good, because the RIR system does seem to be losing its ability to coerce address block aggregation. --karl--
My view, having followed this on the ARIN-PPML list from its inception, is that the substance of this "proposal" is not in the public interest...
I thought that the internet was a place that encouraged innovation and experimentation.
Depository's business model appears to be to set themselves up as a toll booth on the information highway. I agree that we don't need five RIRs, but the last thing we need is a freelance RIR competing with the existing ones, thereby ensuring that the IP registration data will be even patchier and less accurate than it is now. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
On 05/08/2011 10:32 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
Depository's business model appears to be to set themselves up as a toll booth on the information highway.
I totally agree with you on that point. And yet even accepting that their business model is to make money I do not see why that is deserving of condemnation? I agree that we don't need five RIRs,
but the last thing we need is a freelance RIR competing with the existing ones, thereby ensuring that the IP registration data will be even patchier and less accurate than it is now.
That's the kind of argument that I believe is very constructive when I run it through my "first law". Let me put that another way: My "first law" suggests that Depository's business ought to be allowed unless strong and convincing arguments can be produced to show that it causes a public harm. There *is* a public harm if the tracking of IP addresses back to those who operate them were to be muddied. And as one who uses IP addresses, I feel that such muddying would be a pretty serious public harm. Does that harm rise to the level that Depository should be denied? Perhaps. However, this does suggest to me that if muddy records is the harm that is feared then if Depository makes a commitment to a reverse IP address lookup system that is at least as good as those offered by any of the RIRs then the argument of public-harm dissipates. Personally, I don't understand why anyone would want to create a new RIR - at least not for IPv4 addresses. I do see the need for recordkeeping of what block belongs to whom - but to my mind that ought to be a non-discretionary, clerical, boring, and low cost task that need not be necessarily associated with a RIR - any decent bookkeeping company could do the job. And I do see the need for brokerage functions for IPv4 address blocks - and given the lack of new IPv4 inventory I don't see what the RIRs are going to be doing unless they get into the brokerage business. I have a hard time understanding how this is an issue that goes beyond IPv4. And for those who believe that we will be coerced to IPv6 quickly then those people might feel that if they just let IPv4 address traders exist that if they cause problems that those problems will be short lived. However, I sense that some of the energy being displayed here comes from a fear that IPv6 isn't going to take off. (My own feeling is that IPv6 isn't going to happen and that, instead, the net is going to fragment into separate IPv4 regions, each with its own complete 32-bit IPv4 space, connected by application level gateways.) --karl--
Depository's business model appears to be to set themselves up as a toll booth on the information highway.
I totally agree with you on that point.
And yet even accepting that their business model is to make money I do not see why that is deserving of condemnation?
As should be blindingly obvious, the problem isn't that they make money. The RIRs charge, too. The problem is that they want to be a toll booth, a place where everyone has to pay to get through.
However, this does suggest to me that if muddy records is the harm that is feared then if Depository makes a commitment to a reverse IP address lookup system that is at least as good as those offered by any of the RIRs then the argument of public-harm dissipates.
As should be even more blindingly obvious, if Depository competes with the RIRs, we'll end up with a situation where some records are at Depository, some are at RIRs, and there's no way to tell which is more accurate or more current. It's bad enough now trying to track old allocations that have been moved from ARIN to other RIRs, and there the RIRs are trying to stay in sync. What incentive would the RIRs have to track records at Depository? Who's supposed to pay for their costs of doing so? There's a reason each county only has one deed registry, you know. R's, John
On 05/09/2011 06:30 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
However, this does suggest to me that if muddy records is the harm that is feared then if Depository makes a commitment to a reverse IP address lookup system that is at least as good as those offered by any of the RIRs then the argument of public-harm dissipates.
As should be even more blindingly obvious, if Depository competes with the RIRs, we'll end up with a situation where some records are at Depository, some are at RIRs, and there's no way to tell which is more accurate or more current. It's bad enough now trying to track old allocations that have been moved from ARIN to other RIRs, and there the RIRs are trying to stay in sync. What incentive would the RIRs have to track records at Depository? Who's supposed to pay for their costs of doing so?
There's a reason each county only has one deed registry, you know.
Well, as an analogy the "one deed" one falls flat - most land in the US is subject to easements, building code exemptions, and deeds of trust or mortgages - it is somewhat of an art to dig through the records at a county clerks office to figure out the full bag of rights towards a chunk of real property. But getting back to records - One of the reasons that RIRs have bad records is that them have made it a pain in el butto to keep the records up to date. I had to go to hell and back to update my address block records at ARIN. They simply refused to deal with an individual, they could not belief that a natural person had IP address blocks. It took what amounted to RIR devine intervention to get 'em to update the records. Had I not been on the ICANN Board of Directors at the time I am not sure whether I would have been accorded such a beneficent intervention. As for the larger scope of RIR recordkeeping - if the problem is such as you say then the fact that the RIRs have created a mess ought not to be assessed as a negative against a newcomer. What if that newcomer were to say - hey, we will provide a service to hold all IP block records - we will accept input from RIRs or any IP address space broker and we will charge only the costs, no profit. To some extent the records are academic anyway - because the RIRs do not guarantee that an address block is routable or usable. The really useful information about IP address blocks is whether it can receive packets from the rest of the internet. That information is held by those who do routing, not by the RIRs. And many address blocks are contaminated by prior users (typically spammers) - old filters remain, still active, but forgotten. And some address blocks are contaminated because they once contained servers that, even though those servers are long gone, are still bombarded by client requests. (I once had a chunk of space that got 300 SIP Invites a second aimed a long gone SIP PBX.) Anyone buying IP address space would want that kind of information, and even the existing RIRs can't provide it. --karl--
There's a reason each county only has one deed registry, you know.
Well, as an analogy the "one deed" one falls flat - most land in the US is subject to easements, building code exemptions, and deeds of trust or mortgages - it is somewhat of an art to dig through the records at a county clerks office to figure out the full bag of rights towards a chunk of real property.
Indeed. There's a reason each county only has one deed registry, you know. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
On 05/09/2011 12:51 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
There's a reason each county only has one deed registry, you know.
Well, as an analogy the "one deed" one falls flat - most land in the US is subject to easements, building code exemptions, and deeds of trust or mortgages - it is somewhat of an art to dig through the records at a county clerks office to figure out the full bag of rights towards a chunk of real property.
Indeed. There's a reason each county only has one deed registry, you know.
Right - which argues that there should be exactly one worldwide registry of IP address titles, not five, not fifty. There is no reason why the tasks of allocation of new IP address blocks, the brokerage of used blocks, and the keeping of the big book of block ownership need to be locked together. It is easy to conceive of things like the RIRs doing allocations and sending reports of their grants to the singular recorder of titles. Same for the brokers. It would be entirely consistent with ICANN's role to establish that kind of IP address title registry. --karl--
Indeed. There's a reason each county only has one deed registry, you know.
Right - which argues that there should be exactly one worldwide registry of IP address titles, not five, not fifty.
I agree. But five that don't overlap is better than six that do. It would be swell if the RIRs could agree to do a combined IP address WHOIS, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. R's, John
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
Indeed. There's a reason each county only has one deed registry, you know.
Right - which argues that there should be exactly one worldwide registry of IP address titles, not five, not fifty.
not exactly "titles", but what you seek is here: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
There is no reason why the tasks of allocation of new IP address blocks, the brokerage of used blocks, and the keeping of the big book of block ownership need to be locked together.
There is no reason IMHO to have "brokerage" at all. I think the reason to have allocation and assignment (not ownership, pls!) info together is for simplicity. John (downthread) is complaining about having five Dbs to search. BTW the -a flag will search all mirrored Dbs (not just the RIRs) whois -a -h whois.rirname.net 1.2.3.4 for example.
It is easy to conceive of things like the RIRs doing allocations and sending reports of their grants to the singular recorder of titles. Same for the brokers.
It would be entirely consistent with ICANN's role to establish that kind of IP address title registry.
Would this not be the IANA? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
<rant>viva telecoms, viva ITU termination rates, viva secret bilateral deals, viva networks dipping their cut into everything you do. or IPv6 take your pick Incidentally how many of us sit behind 32bit IPv4 address gateways today? If it hasn't happened yet it probably isn't a good idea. That doesn't support the argument that it is a going to be a good idea into the future. </rant> Christian On 9 May 2011, at 10:26, Karl Auerbach wrote:
However, I sense that some of the energy being displayed here comes from a fear that IPv6 isn't going to take off. (My own feeling is that IPv6 isn't going to happen and that, instead, the net is going to fragment into separate IPv4 regions, each with its own complete 32-bit IPv4 space, connected by application level gateways.)
--karl--
Incidentally how many of us sit behind 32bit IPv4 address gateways today? If it hasn't happened yet it probably isn't a good idea. That doesn't support the argument that it is a going to be a good idea into the future. </rant>
Pretty much every broadband user in the world. Why do you ask? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
You are not confusing nat'd /8 10.x with bilateral interconnected gatewayed /0? Christian de Larrinaga On 9 May 2011, at 21:52, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Incidentally how many of us sit behind 32bit IPv4 address gateways today? If it hasn't happened yet it probably isn't a good idea. That doesn't support the argument that it is a going to be a good idea into the future. </rant>
Pretty much every broadband user in the world. Why do you ask?
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I think you ought to expand that definition, Karl, or make it more concise. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to use the Internet in any way that is privately detrimental as well. As many do. Witness the folderol on this list and the time we spend reading it. On May 9, 2011, at 12:50 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
+ Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental.
- The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use.
- Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment.
- The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity.
Hi Karl, I am confused. If de-aggregation is bad, and adding more RIRs leads to de-aggregation, then how can it be "good" to have independent IP address "registrars"/brokers/whatever we call them which will intensify de-aggregation? On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2011 08:23 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
My view, having followed this on the ARIN-PPML list from its inception, is that the substance of this "proposal" is not in the public interest...
I agree with Eric.
+ Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental.
use the Internet, fine. Hijack its addressing system for profit...no thanks. Eric has pointed you to PPML, where, in the last week, Owen de Long, amongst others has, to my mind has given many reasons this would be detrimental to the public interest.
- The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use.
- Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment.
Is it possible to provide this "proof" if we don't have private address registries/registrars in place?
- The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity.
In the case of new RIRs history and use have created a rather muddy situation:
The RIRs were established as a technical mechanism to facilitate allocation of IP addresses in nicely aggregated blocks.
I would say administrative mechanism. Aggregation is just one of the goals of the RIR system, the others are uniqueness and conservation. Sometimes these goals conflict, so in order to conserve, this might lead to some de-aggregation.
In the pursuit of better aggregation technically there ought to have been one RIR and one RIR only.
Then it wouldn't have been a Regional Registry, just the IANA as global registry. However, politics and the recognition
that in the internet of that era that there were three primary lumps of internet connectivity - with far lesser connections between the lumps - caused rise of ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, each to cover one of those lumps.
While I agree with what Eric said down thread, I think he is incorrect about it not being political. The emergence of the 5 RIRs was "political" in the sense that folk in each ICANN region wanted to control their own IP address policy. It was absurd, for example, that networks in Africa had to go to either the USA or the EU registry to get IP space, depending on their location north or south of the Equator. There are several benefits to having an IP address registry in Africa, native language speakers able to explain policies to folk who may not be literate in English, and ease of involvement in travelling to RIR meetings leading to greater involvement by Africans in setting IP addressing policy are 2 quick wins that spring to mind.
In my last conversation with Jon Postel we discussed this and he recognized and acknowledged that as connectivity changed that there could very well arise a situation in which it would be useful to aggregate two or more RIRs - in other words the death of a RIR was quite in keeping with the policy of promoting IP address block aggregation.
Aggregation is not the sole goal.
Instead of a RIR dying, Jon died, and ICANN got into the game. And the RIRs, realizing that ICANN made a nice shield against the inquiring eyes of governments - bought into the game (and "bought" is the accurate word - during my term on the ICANN bouard the RIRs prevented ICANN insolvency by gifting about $667,000 to ICANN.)
I recall...and you are complaining about this?
For no technical reason, but for every political reason, ICANN - or ICANN wagging the IANA function - created two more RIRs.
and they were good "political" reasons IMHO.
By abandoning the technical rationale for RIRs ICANN created a situation in which there is a vacuum of principled reason - except the political expediency and revenue generation - to determine whether to deny or allow a proposal for a new RIR.
I disagree, the reasons that AfriNIC and LACNIC were created were highly principled reasons.
If, as some have argued, that IP address aggregation is no longer an issue (an argument with which I do not agree) then there would be no reason not to have an open ended number of RIRs.
If IP address aggregation matters then it would make sense to have fewer rather than more RIRs - and that argument would apply as well to existing RIRs which ought then to have to justify the technical validity of their continued existence.
I agree that undue de-aggregation isn't useful. I dispute the idea that the emergence of the 5 RIRs led to significant de-aggregation. RIRs use sparse allocation algorithms, which I imagine a stand alone global registry would also have used. Perhaps you could explain how the very existence leads to more than insignificant de-aggregation? The most significant "de-aggregator" was CIDR.
When I was at Cisco the conventional wisdom was that the internet routing system would go boom when we hit 200,000 prefixes. We are now nearly double that number and packet routing and route information is still chugging along. That's good, because the RIR system does seem to be losing its ability to coerce address block aggregation.
Coercion was never intended to be used. I would bet that if it was used, you'd be plenty pissed off about it!! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Hi, First one can argue the point of whether de-aggregation is bad. Certainly from the point of view of the legacy routing architecture and its FIBs, it is an unfortunate reality though not any worse then adding on a whole new routing FIB for IPv6. However, in an age when the network has flattened considerable with everyone wanting to peer with everyone with anyone who is anyone, I have long felt that the future generation of Routing protocols must be able to take this realty into effect and deal with the problem of a non-aggregated address space. As for the problem of assigning Independent IP address ranges, even if routing aggregation were still the driving force, once could divide between the authority that granted the allocation, some higher authority yet to be determined, and those responsible for fulfilling it - the RIRs. In other words the RIRs would worry about making sure that aggregations standards where met, the technical nitty gritty, while someone else determined the policy of who should and who shouldn't get an allocations. This of course would keep RIRs from becoming the absolute masters of the IPv6 address space, but that might be a good thing. a. On 9 May 2011, at 00:34, McTim wrote:
Hi Karl,
I am confused. If de-aggregation is bad, and adding more RIRs leads to de-aggregation, then how can it be "good" to have independent IP address "registrars"/brokers/whatever we call them which will intensify de-aggregation?
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2011 08:23 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
My view, having followed this on the ARIN-PPML list from its inception, is that the substance of this "proposal" is not in the public interest...
I agree with Eric.
+ Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental.
use the Internet, fine. Hijack its addressing system for profit...no thanks.
Eric has pointed you to PPML, where, in the last week, Owen de Long, amongst others has, to my mind has given many reasons this would be detrimental to the public interest.
- The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use.
- Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment.
Is it possible to provide this "proof" if we don't have private address registries/registrars in place?
- The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity.
In the case of new RIRs history and use have created a rather muddy situation:
The RIRs were established as a technical mechanism to facilitate allocation of IP addresses in nicely aggregated blocks.
I would say administrative mechanism.
Aggregation is just one of the goals of the RIR system, the others are uniqueness and conservation. Sometimes these goals conflict, so in order to conserve, this might lead to some de-aggregation.
In the pursuit of better aggregation technically there ought to have been one RIR and one RIR only.
Then it wouldn't have been a Regional Registry, just the IANA as global registry.
However, politics and the recognition
that in the internet of that era that there were three primary lumps of internet connectivity - with far lesser connections between the lumps - caused rise of ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, each to cover one of those lumps.
While I agree with what Eric said down thread, I think he is incorrect about it not being political. The emergence of the 5 RIRs was "political" in the sense that folk in each ICANN region wanted to control their own IP address policy. It was absurd, for example, that networks in Africa had to go to either the USA or the EU registry to get IP space, depending on their location north or south of the Equator. There are several benefits to having an IP address registry in Africa, native language speakers able to explain policies to folk who may not be literate in English, and ease of involvement in travelling to RIR meetings leading to greater involvement by Africans in setting IP addressing policy are 2 quick wins that spring to mind.
In my last conversation with Jon Postel we discussed this and he recognized and acknowledged that as connectivity changed that there could very well arise a situation in which it would be useful to aggregate two or more RIRs - in other words the death of a RIR was quite in keeping with the policy of promoting IP address block aggregation.
Aggregation is not the sole goal.
Instead of a RIR dying, Jon died, and ICANN got into the game. And the RIRs, realizing that ICANN made a nice shield against the inquiring eyes of governments - bought into the game (and "bought" is the accurate word - during my term on the ICANN bouard the RIRs prevented ICANN insolvency by gifting about $667,000 to ICANN.)
I recall...and you are complaining about this?
For no technical reason, but for every political reason, ICANN - or ICANN wagging the IANA function - created two more RIRs.
and they were good "political" reasons IMHO.
By abandoning the technical rationale for RIRs ICANN created a situation in which there is a vacuum of principled reason - except the political expediency and revenue generation - to determine whether to deny or allow a proposal for a new RIR.
I disagree, the reasons that AfriNIC and LACNIC were created were highly principled reasons.
If, as some have argued, that IP address aggregation is no longer an issue (an argument with which I do not agree) then there would be no reason not to have an open ended number of RIRs.
If IP address aggregation matters then it would make sense to have fewer rather than more RIRs - and that argument would apply as well to existing RIRs which ought then to have to justify the technical validity of their continued existence.
I agree that undue de-aggregation isn't useful. I dispute the idea that the emergence of the 5 RIRs led to significant de-aggregation. RIRs use sparse allocation algorithms, which I imagine a stand alone global registry would also have used. Perhaps you could explain how the very existence leads to more than insignificant de-aggregation?
The most significant "de-aggregator" was CIDR.
When I was at Cisco the conventional wisdom was that the internet routing system would go boom when we hit 200,000 prefixes. We are now nearly double that number and packet routing and route information is still chugging along. That's good, because the RIR system does seem to be losing its ability to coerce address block aggregation.
Coercion was never intended to be used. I would bet that if it was used, you'd be plenty pissed off about it!!
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (8)
-
Antony Van Couvering -
Avri Doria -
Christian de Larrinaga -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Firsthand
-
John R. Levine -
Karl Auerbach -
McTim