"...and hilarity ensued. Not."
http://www.icannwatch.org/articles/05/04/11/132201.shtml
- ferg
"...and hilarity ensued. Not."
http://www.icannwatch.org/articles/05/04/11/132201.shtml
- ferg
Sigh. I am certainly not happy to see this and I must confess dismay that the subject rears its ugly head. My life has been better since i stopped paying attention to these people hoping that they would sink beneath the surface of the sea.
I looked at the Cave Bear blog and saw nothing there that offered any kind of concise clear picture of WHAT their proposed allocation policy was and why it was bad. Does someone have a good succinct write up? If so please send me a pointer off list and i will do my best to get the word out to the folk I reach.
But yeah if you control the IP numbers you have the net by the jugular. Vint Cerf sat at a table for 4 with IBM lobbyist Mike Nelson at dinner on march 30 at David Isenberg's F2C meeting and then got up and gave a very nice talk on P2P technology and extolled this as being the best and most existing stuff happening on the net these days and then THIS? whatever THIS is? And of course i don't know ANY specifics. But there is enough bum news rumbling around not to have to add this on top of everything else.
But again before one starts to yell - just what is it that they want to do and precisely why is it bad? Two thousand words max please - preferably 500 words. pointer please. Off list. One other question here - is there anything being talked about that could take ICANN in the direction of approving routing for critical transactions? I hope not.
On a different subject for those who have been playing with Skype have a look at http://cookreport.com/14.03.shtml and enjoy.
>"...and hilarity ensued. Not."
>
>http://www.icannwatch.org/articles/05/04/11/132201.shtml
Sigh. I am certainly not happy to see this and I must confess dismay
that the subject rears its ugly head. My life has been better since
i stopped paying attention to these people hoping that they would
sink beneath the surface of the sea.I looked at the Cave Bear blog and saw nothing there that offered any
kind of concise clear picture of WHAT their proposed allocation
policy was and why it was bad.
This is all a tempest in a teapot and it is all caused by
a poor choice of headings and seems to be a knee jerk
reaction to several possible ways in which the heading
can be misunderstood. The heading in question is
"IP4 Global Allocation Policy". But the truth of the
matter is found in the first clause:
"Whereas, the ASO Address Council has forwarded a codification of
existing global policies for allocation of IPv4 address blocks
from IANA to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), affirming
that the Policy had been approved in accordance with the policy
development process adopted and specified by the ASO MOU."
This has nothing whatsoever to do with IPv4 allocations to
IP network operators or end users, both of which are
governed by REGIONAL policies created and administered
by the REGIONAL Internet Registries.
I think it is a good think that ICANN has accepted a policy which
treats all regions evenly and a policy which was created, bottom
up, by the regional groups themselves.
ICANN is not perfect but it is hard to see anything
wrong with this particular action.
--Michael Dillon
I thought you were doing these on a blog now
This is all a tempest in a teapot and it is all caused by a poor choice of
headings and seems to be a knee jerk reaction to several possible ways in
which the heading can be misunderstood.
Auerbach complains about ICANN.
He challenges process rather than outcomes.
He even cites the absence of protracted, public dialogue as 'proof' that input
is being ignored.
The input turns out to be markedly minimal, where he comprises 25% of it.
An anti-ICANN website publishes it.
Why is it anyone thinks this sort of icann-bashing-as-usual, is somehow
significant and worthy of burdening nanog?
d/
Why is it anyone thinks this sort of icann-bashing-as-usual, is somehow
significant and worthy of burdening nanog?
we should return to fergie's endless news items?
procmail is your friend
randy
what's got to be wrong about it? ICANNwatch is the unelected opposition
party to ICANN's unelected majority party. Whatever ICANN does, ICANNwatch
finds somebody who opposes it or comes out and opposes it themselves if
they must, cause that's what opposition parties do. Being right or wrong
or in the service of the community has nothing to do with it.
(citing out of order to make a point...)
The input turns out to be markedly minimal, where he comprises 25% of it.
Whether Karl is in fact right or a raving net.loon, there is indeed something very
wrong with the process if he's 25% of the input.
He even cites the absence of protracted, public dialogue as 'proof' that input
is being ignored.
Exactly. This is the Internet, remember? Even a mostly-obvious statement like
"ISPs should prevent their customers from leaking rfc1918-sourced addresses" will
start a flamefest. So the *lack* of a flame-fest regarding *any* action taken
by ICANN should tell you something about the perception of ICANN - even the
majority of net.loons have learned it's not worth the effort....
It may be useful to keep in mind that this is the tail end of a long process that we're talking about here. There was already a lot of discussion about this in the RIR regional forums when the policy was being developed, so far from being symptomatic of a problem I think that the lack of controversy here is a good sign that the system works.
FWIW,
Doug
Not so. The idea of an opposition party suggests the editors of ICW have some desire to be in control. Not at all.
Further, we run a slash server. Most of the content is contributed. We don't have to go hunt for it.
If ICANN ran decent discussion boards, it would put us out o business. One can only hope and dream.