And this relates to NARALO how?

Joly, The provisioning of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in association with bandwidth in excess of 56kB in the national markets within the "NARALO region" is constrained by national law. In rural areas the constraint is implemented through a lack of universal access public policy, in urban agglomerations the constraint is implemented through monopoly grants of utility infrastructure for wireline placement, and restrictions on access to local exchange carrier infrastructure. The project Glenn cited, which is the subject of interest of Susan Crawford and others working on the public policy of network access, and similar projects undertaken by public agencies in the NARALO region, provision IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in association with bandwidth in excess of 56kB, and do so independently of the economic organization (local monopoly) of the local franchise holders and advantages granted incumbent local exchange carriers. So if, and only if, the ICANN Board may be benefited by advice that touches on IPv4 and/or IPv6 address allocation with conditions associated with (a) prefix announcement to the default free zone and (b) bandwidth in excess of 56kB in the North American region, then some relationship between the bylaws role of "At Large" and its geographical subdivision and experiments in the technologies of addresses-and-conditions and initiatives in their availabilities in North America nominally exists. I hope this answers your initial question. If so, then I hope that you may see that address allocation with announcement and link characteristic conditions is fundamental to equity of access policy. Eric

On 1/27/13 11:45 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:

Looking at this question from the narrow perspective of New York City, are you saying that IP4/6 address allocation to entities that might seek to compete with the existing bandwidth oligopoly is dependent on an address-freeing action from the ICANN? And thus the relevance to the NA-Discuss list, to answer Joly's question, is that if we're interested in improving bandwidth in New York, the list should bottom-up an enabling request to the ICANN board of directors?

Let us assume for the moment that address associated with prefixes announced to the Default Free Zone (DFZ), and provisioned at link level such that the associated bandwidth is greater than 56kB are provided by a "market" dominated by a single ip/cdn (internet protocol over cable data network) operator holding a municipal franchise granting exclusive access to public rights of way (utility poles and tunnels), and by a former Bell Operating Company offering ip/ss7 (internet protocol over Signalling System 7), which provides "competitive local exchange" facilities to third-party ip/ss7 providers, and by one or two ip/vsat (internet protocol over Very Small Aperture Terminal) providers. I think this is a reasonable assumption for most of the major metro areas in the NARALO region. There are a few exceptions, one is the subject of the note which began this tread. You've asked if re-allocation, presumably of IPv4 address resources, is necessary, or at least a cost element, for reducing what we can refer to as a bandwidth oligopoly. In theory, if the allocation regime during the current exhaustion of IPv4 allocators (ARIN in the NARALO region) is "market price", then any high capital venture, say putting addresses on refrigerators or billboards, could price human eyeballs (access network operators) out of the market. So the answer to the oligopoly and transition question you've posed is a very, very thin "yes", however that doesn't necessarily mean that an advise-the-Board public interest issue exists, or exists as narrowly as address block assignment. The more general question is should the Board be advised that access policy controlled by market price is contrary to the public interest. There are "free market" advocates on the ARIN AC, and there is no shortage of "free market" advocates for access to each of the unique endpoint identifier resources for which the Corporation is the current coordinator. Clearly, I think the Board should be so advised, though not from the hypothetical you've raised, but were I to offer my thoughts on the public interest capabilities of a public metropolitan network operator, as I did when writing one vendor's response to a major metropolitan government's gTLD RFP, the interdependency of naming and addressing policy would address and link address and link provisioning and names policies (puns intended). Eric

I thought number allocation was the business of the RIRs, and ICANN was names?

IANA, which is operated by ICANN, hands out large chunks of IP addresses to the RIRs, which then handle the suballocation to organizations in their respective regions. All of the IPv4 space has been delegated to the RIRs, so it's hard to imagine how ICANN could influence future IPv4 allocation even if they unwisely attempted to do so. For IPv6, the chunks are so large that it'll be years before the RIRs use up the chunks they already have. They're currently using allocations they got from IANA in 2006. 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

...

... so it's hard to imagine how ICANN could influence future IPv4 allocation even if they unwisely attempted to do so.

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/implementing-ipv4-post-04oct12-e...

When I read the code words in there, it's clear that the "policy" decisions are trivia like how to organize the list of blocks on the IANA web site, and the real policy is to give the RIRs what they ask for, perhaps with some minor technical adjustments so that RIRs get blocks adjacent to ones they already manage, and for which they're already handling rDNS. If IANA tried to tell the RIRs what to do with the returned blocks, there wouldn't be any more returned blocks. 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

It's not out of the question, I guess, that NARALO could participate, as a body, in the RIR pdp. On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams < ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:

On 1/27/13 3:25 PM, John R. Levine wrote:

...

If IANA tried to tell the RIRs what to do with the returned blocks, there wouldn't be any more returned blocks.

Address policy is developed by the RIRs. This is one of the significant differences between ICANN "names" policy development, which is without any geographic locus (other than the obvious one in Marina del Rey), or "global" (with the equally obvious caveats on what "global" might, or might not mean) and ICANN "address" policy development.

Of all the ICANN bylaws entities I've paid attention to over the life of the Corporation, the distributed policy development of At Large regions (in theory) and that of the RIRs, are most similar.

Eric ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

Hi All Thanks for the stimulating conversation. It was asked of my why I posted this article and it's relevance to NARALO. I should have seeded comment but Eric and John have been more than helpful in stimulating discussion. In the future I will poise it as a direct comment and how it relates our community Glenn On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams < ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:

On 1/27/13 11:28 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:

...

It's not out of the question, I guess, that NARALO could participate, as a body, in the RIR pdp.

The arin-ppml mailing list is open.

I've no views on the participation in policy development of a regional subdivision of a bylaws entity by a regional subdivision of another bylaws entity.

Eric ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

-- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn@gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

On 1/28/13 2:08 PM, John R. Levine wrote:

...

...

The arin-ppml mailing list is open.

...

...

I've no views on the participation in policy development of a regional subdivision of a bylaws entity by a regional subdivision of another bylaws entity.

I think that people who care about address allocation should subscribe directly.

Agree. The question posed by Joly concerned "NARALO ... as a body, in the [ARIN] pdp", which I answered.

If you really care about it, join ARIN, which costs money.

For many, many years as a direct holder of portable (provider independent) /17 and /18 blocks, and a non-portable (provider assigned) /21 block. Good advice in general, to which I add "if you really care about it, and either have domain specific expertise or a material interest, then join ARIN (or RIPE or ...)" which as you noted, is not free. Eric

On 2/9/13 2:51 PM, Garth Bruen wrote:

Given the intense discussion on this I have put at the top of the list for Monday's call under Any Other Business. If someone wants to talk about it specifically, let me know.

I don't think the informed discussion between John and myself, Joly's institutional conclusion or proposal, Tom's specific question, and Glenn's initial forward really constitute "intense discussion", except perhaps, in comparison to other subjects. However, if there is a possible action item it is to consider whether the allocation of scarce resources, specifically IPv4 assets, either those remaining for allocation or those recovered for reallocation or those tendered for transfer as "assets" or "rights", is, consistent with the public interest, determined only by the capitalization of applications for (re)allocation. To keep it simple, is ICANN's policy, originating in the regional address registries and the ASO, and upon adoption by the Corporation, implemented through the ASO and its regional address registries, to allocate the remaining and recovered IPv4 blocks to the wealthiest applicants, or does the purpose to which the applicant proposes to commit the critical and scarce resource determine the allocation? If the latter, then, at least from any RALO that so finds, proposed advice to the ALAC, which may fulfill its ByLaws charter and so advise the Board. I won't be on the call. Noon my time Monday the 11th is when I take a child to school. Eric

On 2/9/13 7:03 PM, John R. Levine wrote:

The RIRs would stoutly deny that the policy it to allocate available space to the wealthiest applicants. They have rules about who qualifies, based on existing usage and documented plans. The part about allowing existing address space holders to sell it directly to others is just recognizing reality, since they will do it whether or not ICANN and the RIRs like it.

I only follow the ARIN lists concerning policy, and predictably, there are advocates of "best use" determined by "market price". An example is whether or not specific transfers (from one prior allocatee to some other entity) require a needs-based justification. There has been significant advocacy to eliminate this, leaving only "market price" as the (re)allocation policy.

In any event, if the answer is that we don't like the current policies, are we willing to go to war with the RIRs to make them change them?

Offering advice to the Corporation Board where there is a substantive public interest issue is the purpose of the At Large ByLaws entity. As I replied to Joly's one-liner, participation as a body in ARIN policy development, or any other ByLaws entity's internal process, is not required. Eric

I recall hearing, from Avri, that this was one of the main drivers behind the arab support of the ITU at WCIT, that they had been short-changed on IPv4's. Naive, as I am, I am still a little unsure of how much the distribution of ip addresses is ICANN's business. On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:

Proposed Advice:

It is the advice of _________ to the Corporation Board, that, consistent with its responsibilities as the technical coordinator of unique endpoint identifiers, and consistent with the public interest in the equitable distribution of unique endpoint identifiers, that allocation of IPv4 addresses, now scarce, promote equity of access of late adopters.

Eric ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

Naive, as I am, I am still a little unsure of how much the distribution of ip addresses is ICANN's business.

It is ICANN's business to the extent that ICANN runs IANA which handed out most of the original /8 allocations, and has a modest pool of returned space. But IP space routing happens from the bottom up, unlike domain names which work from the top down. If the RIRs decided they didn't like IANA's policies, they could ignore IANA, allocate space to their existing and new customers any way they want, and there wouldn't be anything ICANN could do about it. So even if we were to dislike the RIRs' plans, I wouldn't waste our limited volunteer time on it. As several of us said before, if this is something of importance to you, engage directly with your local RIR. R's, John

On 10 February 2013 19:31, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: So even if we were to dislike the RIRs' plans, I wouldn't waste

our limited volunteer time on it.

While I agree with this, I think we could do worse than to have an established contact relationship between NARALO and ARIN, and perhaps invite John Curran to a Q&A at a future meeting. Even if we needn't churn policy on this a little extra awareness never hurts, especially for ALSs and members who may not be familiar with the role of the second N in the ICANN acronym. - Evan

On 1/27/13 12:00 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:

I thought number allocation was the business of the RIRs, and ICANN was names?

oh dear. i was afraid that might be the case. addresses, protocol parameters and domain names. -e