Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AFRINIC-rpd] AFRINIC Response to Government Calls for an Arab RIR

Stephen Wilcox steve.wilcox at
Tue Feb 26 16:17:43 UTC 2013

I am unclear - what is the purpose for this?

Current RIRs span geographic continent areas, whereas this seems to be
aimed towards a language and cultural zone which as is pointed out is
roughly MENA. An area that has never been considered "continental". Would
we also want to have French-Africa and English-Africa breaking out for the
same reason (??)

Who exactly is behind the request - what countries/organizations?

WTSA and WCIT introduced some highly contentious issues which ultimately
split the world's opinions and was not ratified by most of the developed
world. It feels to me that having lost that battle perhaps the same
proponents are now looking for alternative ways to steer control. It is
possible within a smaller region (AfriNIC/RIPE) that maybe there are ways
in which a majority might be formed which are ultimately regional.

Key points from WCIT were the interest in certain nations to include the
Internet within the regulation of the ITU which means government control
rather than the current multi-stakeholder model. Its unclear exactly but
part of the driver behind that seems to have been governments and incumbent
telcos looking for regulatory ways to monetize international Internet
traffic - since this currently flows freely via peering and transit
arrangements versus the voice model where there is generally settlement for
traffic flowing into a country.

I'm not clear how IP addresses help, but clearly passing control of IP
towards governments opens the scope for regulation. Since its inception the
management of Internet resources has avoided being controlled by any
government entities. And this is not in any way a new idea but has so far
been held back by the fact that the Internet was not designed this way and
became what it is through precisely the opposite of this. Hence, I am
wondering who it is who is fielding these ideas?

Kind regards

On 26 February 2013 15:59, McTim <dogwallah at> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at>wrote:
>> If Arab world want address registry let them have it.
> I think all 5 regions would have to agree to modify ICP-2 for this to
> happen.
> I think that M. Diop is correct, it is a very slippery slope that these
> folk want to embark upon!
>> But ICANN have no more IPv4 to give new registry right?
> Unless some is returned, you are correct.
> --
> Cheers,
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
> indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list