My understanding from community networks here in the U.S. that ARIN will charge $2,500/yr for an IPv6 block. While cheap for a business, this is out of the question for CWNs -- especially given the alternative of NAT boxes. Harold At 01:47 PM 9/9/2004, Adam Peake wrote: >At 11:35 AM -0400 9/9/04, Harold Feld wrote: >>I believe that we should raise the issue of the administration of the >>number space within the context of the WGIG. We should highlight those >>issues in number allocation that inhibit noncommercial use of the Internet >>and should press for examination of these policies with a goal of changing >>them to policies that facilitate noncommercial use. >> >>Similarly, competitive effects of IP address allocation should be >>examined. Artificially inflated prices caused by allocation policies that >>inhibit the development of competition hurt all users, but noncommercial >>users in particular. Artificially inflated prices are essentially a >>regressive tax on IP allocations. > > >Harold, > >How much do RIRs charges for a single IP address, I am pretty sure APNIC >works out at about 1 cent / address (it might be as much as 3 cents. US >not AU.) Where's the problem, with the RIR or ISP? (I don't know, this >is a genuine question!) > >I am very interested in finding out if RIR open policy processes work. >Something we've discussed in other lists is how some of the early large >allocations (the pre 1995 blocks) might be recovered. Some people in Japan >have mentioned IP number portability as a problem, plenty of broadband and >growing home networks (I am technically clueless, but I think there are >kind of hard wired reasons why that's hard.) > >Thanks, > >Adam > > > > > >>Harold >> >>At 07:21 PM 9/8/2004, you wrote: >>>Not sure what this means. The tendency is to allocate number space to >>>large players (big ISPs which then sub-allocate to smaller comapnies >>>etc.), with no possibility to have your own small subset of IP space >>>as an end user (even if you are an .org with 100 computers). Is this >>>what you'd like to have changed? With IPv6 this seems sort of >>>impossible (so I am told). I think it is a pity too. >>> >>>On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, at 16:32 [=GMT-0400], Harold Feld wrote: >>> >>>> Allow me to suggest an addition: >>>> >>>> 5. Access to number space in a manner that fosters non-commercial access >>>> and is competitively neutral. >>>> >>>> Harold Feld >>>> >>>> At 11:38 AM 9/5/2004, Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> > >>> "William Drake" <[log in to unmask]> 9/5/2004 12:23:56 AM >>> >>>> > >Can we identify five to seven leading issues and recommendations >>>> > >that we think are the most pressing with regard to IG? These can >>>> > >be either individual issue-areas (e.g. management of identifiers is >>>> > >obviously one of them) or cross-cutting meta-level problems. >>>> > >>>> >Our forthcoming report will clarify many of these issues. >>>> >We (the Internet Governance Project) will be able to release >>>> >it in a few days. At the moment we are still subject to a >>>> >vetting process. Unfortunately, some of the actors are playing >>>> >games, either strategically refusing to comment or commenting >>>> >privately but telling us that they are officially "not commenting" >>>> >(but still giving us some valuable insight into what they think). >>>> > >>>> >Nevertheless, I can identify several areas that I think will >>>> >prove to be strategic: >>>> > >>>> >1. Relationship of Intellectual Property Protection to >>>> >Free Expression and Privacy. >>>> >I believe that certain international organizations and >>>> >perhaps some business interests will attempt to claim >>>> >that IPR is off the table, and that it has nothing to do >>>> >with Internet governance. Nothing could be further >>>> >from the truth. The Internet has forced a complete >>>> >revision of global copyright and trademark agreements >>>> >In a variety of venues, including >>>> >WIPO and ICANN, we see IPR protection issues >>>> >coming into direct contact with free expression and >>>> >privacy norms and even some scientific inquiry norms. >>>> >These issues should not be worked out exclusively >>>> >in arenas such as WIPO, which are historically mandated >>>> >to serve IPR interests and see IP owners as their >>>> >constituency. >>>> > >>>> >2. ICANN's status as a non-state actor. >>>> >This is a tricky one. ICANN is under attack on three fronts, >>> > >1) its basis in US Govt/law 2) its non-governmental nature >>> > >3) the degree to which it does "policy" as opposed to >>>> >"technical management" (which may be just an extension of >>>> >issue 2). There is no doubt that specific governments intend >>>> >to make an issue of this, and there is still the possibility that >>>> >it will overwhelm everything else. Imho, we need to defend >>>> >the multi-stakeholder, non-state governance of the regime >>>> >against the possibility that it will become more governmental >>>> >and regulatory, while recognizing (critically) that ICANN *does* >>>> >do policy and supporting efforts to find a model that >>>> >does not rely on US govt contracting. There are some even >>>> >deeper issues regarding the use of contracting as a global >>>> >governance mechanism, too much to go into here. >>>> > >>>> >3. Relationship between security/surveillance on the >>>> >Internet and civil liberties. >>>> >Here again, the narrow, issue-specific regimes focused >>>> >on attacking terrorism/crime tend to override other legitimate >>>> >concerns. We could promote a broadened dialogue >>>> >that forces Internet surveillance and security measures to be >>>> >respectful of human rights in a globally uniform way. >>>> > >>>> >4. Right to internetwork globally >>>> >The most fundamental issue is the hardest to convey. >>>> >Territorial governments must formally recognize and >>>> >explicitly accept the non-territorial nature of IP networking >>>> >and the Internet's architecture. No serious agreements about >>>> >Internet governance in any given area can be made until that >>>> >issue is dealt with. Either the potential of global networking >>>> >is accepted as a factual starting point, or governance >>>> >gravitates toward chopping it up into territorially-controlled >>>> >architectures and resource allocation procedures (thus >>>> >destroying much of the value of the Internet). It may be >>>> >too much to ask territorial governments to accept the >>>> >reality and salience of nonterritorial interconnection, but >>>> >that is really the choice they are faced with. >>>> > >>>> >--MM