International Internet Community Questions ITU Group

[Brisbane, Australia – Friday, 12 March 2010]
Members of the Internet community gathered recently to examine ongoing discussion by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which is investigating a number of issues regarding IP address management including whether or not it should attempt to become involved in the global IP address allocation and management system.

As a result of these discussions, an agreed community statement was prepared and included in a report delivered directly to the ITU for consideration by its “IPv6 Group” when it meets from 15 March 2010 in
Geneva.

The ITU, which will meet in October 2010 for its quadrennial meeting,
established the IPv6 Group to explore perceived issues surrounding the
allocation and management of IPv6 Internet addresses. On the agenda
for the 15 March 2010 meeting is a discussion of the possible creation
of a parallel structure to what is already in place – the Regional
Internet Registry system – that will give its Member States the option
of a Country Internet Registry.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it
——————————-

The APNIC Community Consultation session, held in collaboration with
the Number Resource Organization at APNIC 29 on 3 March 2010, concluded
that a parallel address management system could create significant
risks to the Internet, notably, fragmentation of the Internet itself.
As such, the community called for a clear problem statement, sufficient
details of proposed solutions, and a thorough risk analysis.

Dave Crocker, a member of the North American Internet community, asked
a question that was troubling others in attendance – what problem with
the current system of IP address management does the ITU hope to
address?

“I’ve always understood that a precept in making changes to an
operational system is to only make changes that are essential. I
don’t think I understand what problem needs to be fixed?” – Dave
Crocker, Brandenburg InternetWorking

Judith Duavit Vazquez, a member of the Philippine Internet community,
believes there is nothing wrong with the existing structure of IP
address management.

“The question is how can an ITU Member Country help? A parallel
structure is not the answer.” – Judith Duavit Vazquez, PHCOLO

Transparent, bottom-up communication
————————————

A complete transcript and video of the session are available for public
viewing on the APNIC website.

It was apparent that most community members in attendance felt the
inclusiveness of Internet governance is vital, and that sense of
openness could be threatened if another system of governance is put in
place alongside the RIR system.

The APNIC Internet community compiled a statement on behalf of the Asia
Pacific community, the Number Resources Organization, and Internet
users worldwide that was submitted to the ITU for consideration at the
IPv6 Group meeting.

In essence members of the community called for the ITU to observe the
example of the Internet community and the Internet Governance Forum
(IGF) process and make its documents and records available publicly, so
that all Internet stakeholders can participate in deliberations that
could have global ramifications.

James Spenceley, a member of the governing board of APNIC (Asia Pacific
Network Information Centre), summed up the benefits of how IP addresses
are currently managed.

“The Internet has become what it is today because of open,
transparent, bottom-up processes. There are no barriers to
participation, and addresses are equitably and effectively
distributed throughout the world.” – James Spenceley, Vocus Group
Ltd, Australia

The APNIC Community Consultation was a defining moment in demonstrating
a public view that there is no need to have an additional parallel
structure to manage IPv6 addresses. The discussion process itself and
well-established arguments to support the existing RIRs’ mechanism for
IPv6 address management provided further proof of validity to the
current Internet management processes.

http://meetings.apnic.net/29/program/consultation