[LAC-TF] Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Numbering issues

[Carlos Afonso]

Caríssimas y carísssimos,

El mensaje abajo del compa Harold menciona asunto de gran importancia sobre 
los criterios de distribución de números (y bloques de números) IPv6.

En mi visión, tal como los ccTLDs, números IP deberían ser considerados 
patrimonio de la comunidad ("assets of the commons" o bienes públicos), no 
"commodities". No es así con muchos de los ccTLDs, y sabemos que la 
distribución de IPs por proveedores es un comercio como cualquier otro.

Ahora estamos en un nuevo paradigma, el de IPv6, en que hay abundancia y no 
escasez de este recurso (argumento usado por algunos para que se comercialize 
la cosa) -- más razón todavía para que sea considerado y tratado como un bien 
público.

Me gustaría debatir un poco el asunto en el ámbito de LACNIC como en el ámbito 
de la gestión de esos recursos en Brasil.

[]s fraternos

--c.a.

----------  Mensagem encaminhada  ----------

Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Numbering issues
Date: Thursday 26 August 2004 14:15
From: Harold Feld <hfeld at MEDIAACCESS.ORG>
To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Hi everyone!

I am back from a fantastic conference on community wireless networking.  In
the United States, there is increasing interest by non-commercial
organizations to use unlicensed spectrum access to provide free or low-cost
Internet connectivity to poor urban neighborhoods and rural communities.

At the conference, I discovered that there is an urgent need for more
address space.  Nearly all community wireless networks are deployed behind
NAT boxes, which creates difficulties for those trying to foster
independent community media projects or voice over IP for community networks.

The issue is purely financial.  Community networks cannot afford v6 blocks
of address space.    While address blocks are modestly priced by commercial
standards, they are beyond the reach of community wireless projects.  I had
one administrator tell me that the cost of a v6 block would be higher than
the cost of his entire network combined.  What is worse, because it is an
annual registration fee, v6 space would constitute a continuing
expense.  Even if a network can raise the money for an initial registration
via a grant, there is a problem of sustainability.

In any event, what is needed is not a one shot cure for a single network,
but a systemic way of addressing the issue.  I would very much like to talk
to people in the RIR community about this issue in the hopes of working out
a solution (I have some ideas).  But I do not know who in the RIR community
or the broader ICANN community would be interested and sympathetic to the
issue.

I suspect this issue goes beyond the scope of the NCUC, since this is the
naming side of the street. However, I expect that access to address space
has been a long standing issue outside of the U.S., and would be very eager
to hear from anyone outside the U.S. what problems getting affordable
address space you have and what solutions (other than NAT) are available.

Finally, if there is a sense within the Consticuency that numbering issues
are appropriately addressed here (since there is no other place within the
ICANN structure to raise issues of unique concern to the noncommercial
community), please let me know.

Harold Feld

-------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento e estratégia
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
Rua Guilhermina Guinle 272 - sexto andar
22270-060 Rio de Janeiro BRASIL
telefone +55-21-2527-5494
telefax  +55-21-2527-5460
http://www.rits.org.br