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

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> How much cost could realistically be driven out, and still have a secure,
> reliable database and an open policy development process?
>
> I am aware of a couple of companies that would like to compete with the
> RIRs. Maybe that's what you're thinking of. So far they have been unable to
> convince me that they have the communities' best interests at heart.


There is a 100% chance that a for profit entity would increase every fee
that the non-profit RIRs charge today, and invent as many new fees and
charges as they could possibly get away with.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:41 PM Howard, Lee via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I envy you and Bill your threaded mail readers.
>
> Clearly other models exist for establishing uniqueness than treaty
> organizations, since that is the status quo.
>
> Your assertion is that competitive RIRs would therefore be able to provide
> less bureaucracy and lower cost than current RIRs.
> In the allocation of numbers, IPv6 blocks and ASNs are pretty easy to get,
> everywhere. They're also pretty cheap:
>                 RIPE NCC        APNIC           AFRINIC         LACNIC
>       ARIN
> IPv6 /32        2600 EUR        1000 AUD        5000 USD        2750 USD
>       1000 USD
> ASN             2600 EUR        0 AUD           450 USD 500 USD 250 USD
> (That's initial fee plus annual renewal, but there are nuances I've
> simplified. I'm not authoritative and could be corrected for reading their
> pages wrong).
>
> When it comes to IPv4 transfers, the bureaucratic hurdle varies by region.
> But the potential for fraud is high, and the disruption to the Internet if
> fraud were to succeed at scale would be significant. (Aha! We found
> something operational!)
>
> How much cost could realistically be driven out, and still have a secure,
> reliable database and an open policy development process?
>
> I am aware of a couple of companies that would like to compete with the
> RIRs. Maybe that's what you're thinking of. So far they have been unable to
> convince me that they have the communities' best interests at heart.
>
> Lee
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 6:52 PM
> To: Howard, Lee <LeeHoward () hilcostreambank com>
> Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to
> December 2024
>
> Hi Lee,
>
> On Nov 18, 2024, at 2:46 PM, Howard, Lee via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> wrote:
> > 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 except that telephone numbers and radio frequencies are
> allocated/managed by nation-states under UN-based international treaty
> regimes. I’m not sure this is a particularly good model to follow.
>
> > What problem are you trying to solve?
>
> As I suspect you’re aware, pragmatically, the geographical monopoly
> restrictions imposed by the RFCs/ICP-2 are increasingly bypassed, resulting
> in those restrictions arguably merely adding unnecessary bureaucracy/cost.
> The question is, when considering revising the policies under which the RIR
> operate, whether or not perpetuating those restrictions is beneficial in
> the long run.
>
> Regards,
> -drc