I for one find it difficult to truly separate numbers from names since IANA is under ICANN’s control and the last “N” in ICANN is “Numbers” From: evanleibovitch@gmail.com [mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 11:40 AM To: Garth Bruen Cc: NARALO Discussion List Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Article on CircleID by Chris Grundermann (ISOC CO ALS) Good stuff. While so much of the ICANN world focuses on TLDs -- because there is so much loose money floating around that realm -- every now and then we need to be reminded of the other resources under ICANN's stewardship, and the fact that in those realms too there are actors who would diminish the public interest in the management of such resources. Thanks, Chris. On 24 May 2013 11:26, Garth Bruen <gbruen@knujon.com> wrote: "Removing Need at RIPE" http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130523_removing_need_at_ripe/ Interesting analysis of RIPE policies concerning IPv4 allocations. ------ 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 ------ -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

Good stuff. While so much of the ICANN world focuses on TLDs -- because there is so much loose money floating around that realm -- every now and then we need to be reminded of the other resources under ICANN's stewardship, and the fact that in those realms too there are actors who would diminish the public interest in the management of such resources.

While I agree that this policy move seems dubious, it would be really, really BAD if ICANN tried to tell the RIRs what to do. IP addresses are not like domain names, and ICANN has no leverage over the RIRs. (I can explain why, but the details are tedious.) If RIPE is doing something unwise, and it wouldn't be the first time, it has to be fixed within RIPE's processes. R's, John