RE: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

["Howard, Lee via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>]

In the same way that phone numbers or radio frequencies are allocated by geographical monopolies, yes.
Except that the RIRs are *much* more open to participation.
And you don't have to get addresses from RIRs; you can get them from NIRs in some cases, or LIRs everywhere.

What problem are you trying to solve?

Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+leehoward=hilcostreambank.com () nanog org> On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2024 3:48 PM
To: Noah <noah () neo co tz>
Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments.



On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah <noah () neo co tz> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG, <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
> > > 2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by the ICP to non-overlapping geographic 
> > > territories.
> >
> > While geographic monopolies may have made sense in the past, it is unclear to me how/why they make sense today 
> > (unless the point is to create/perpetuate a cartel).
>
> I am curious as to what you mean by create/perpetuate a cartel?

A group of geographical monopolies who between them have total control over what the essential service costs and 
whether anybody else can perform it. It might as well be the definition of a cartel.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin
bill () herrin us
https://bill.herrin.us/