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

[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 135, Issue 58

Owen DeLong owen at
Mon Dec 11 18:39:54 UTC 2017

> On Dec 9, 2017, at 15:53 , Lu Heng < at> wrote:
>  Hi
> 1. All IPs belong to IANA

No, this is simply not true and reflects a gross misunderstanding of the structure.

IPs are integers. One simply cannot own an integer. Try it out for size to see just how ridiculous it would be. Imagine telling all of your friends that you own “four” and that they need your permission to use it.

What we are talking about when we talk about “owning” IPs is actually not ownership at all (or at least not tangible ownership of integers). It’s registration of integers for the unique use of a particular network within a cooperating system of registries. That system of registries is made up of IANA (operated by ICANN currently under the IANA functions contract on behalf of the empowered community) and 5 regional internet registries. The IANA performs its registry related duties (namely distributing IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, and Autonomous System Numbers) according to global policies developed by the Global PDP (which includes passing identical policy proposals through the PDP of each of the existing RIRs (currently 5) followed by ratification by the ASO AC/NRO NC and then the ICANN Board.

There is precedent for the ownership and transfer of some of these registrations.

> 2.African internet community is not a virtual entity, for it does not own anything. It is simply a group of people who are interested in the region’s internet.

I think you meant “is a virtual entity”.

> 3. RIR was created to facilitate local internet development, instead of a territorial exclusive governing body—at least that was Rob—founder of the system believes. 

Actually, territorial exclusivity is one of the principles defined in ICP-2, so while there is some variability to what that should mean, there is at least some intent towards territorial exclusivity enshrined in the documents under which AfriNIC was created.

> 4. On the contrary to what many believe, the resource assigned to AFRINIC was not given to Africa. In fact, those resources still belong to IANA--just like any other RIR's resource.

No. This really isn’t true. Once a resource is delegated from IANA to an RIR, the only way it comes back to IANA is if the RIR chooses to return it or if the RIR issues it to someone who chooses to return it to IANA.

> 5. While IP remains a public resource,  the usage rights of IP resource is a private right. At today's market, those rights worth millions.

This is an interesting way to characterize things. Let’s say that I (and the RIR) agree that I have the rights to What legal barrier is there that prevents you from using that address range on your network?

At least in most jurisdictions, the answer is “None, so long as I don’t engage in tortious interference.”

Even in a case of tortious interference, it’s a somewhat grey area.

The reality is that for all practical purposes, this works on the basis of cooperation. The internet works because ISPs cooperate about number uniqueness and hijacking of numbers is generally shut down rather promptly by ISPs in most cases.

> 6. While market economy might not be the best solution, it is the only solution we know that works as centre planning and redistribution of resource(the basic ideology of communism) do not work, hundreds of millions of lives which lost in the 20th century proves this.

I’m not sure you can blame all of that loss of life on the differences between capitalism and communism. Rather I think it’s more about the difference between facism (which usually accompanied socialism) and democracy or at least benevolent monarchy (universally available wherever capitalism has flourished).

> 7. Voting is rejected in the first sentence of RFC7282, <> .  Thus, "it would be necessary to resort to the vote" will never happen in the current process.

Nor should it. Voting is a sure path to tyranny. Whether it be the tyranny of the majority over a minority as is the more common case or the tyranny of those best able to manipulate the process (as is often the case in western elections and parliamentary bodies).

> 8. And if you look at the issue realistically, the real minority here might be those non-profit organizations and academics that supports the policy, both in terms of the number of people and the amount of resources held. I believe those ISP are way out number NGOs in this contest by far, just they did't pay as much as attention to the process as some of the NGO do. I would rather call them "silence majority".
> 9. Just to stress again, since we do not apply any soft landing space, therefore me and my cooperation have no views on this soft landing policy, our only stand here is to correct the policy development process in which is currently broken. 

Well… That’s not entirely true unless you are also saying that your organization has no plans or desire to obtain additional space of any form other than through transfers. Since the proposed soft landing bis policy would curtail many future registrations.

> And if I may add, the RIR system, both the book keeper ideology as well as consensus-based decision making, is a brilliant idea that protects the system by far, the more I think about it, the more I appreciate it. 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list