>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 05:46:16 -0500 (EST)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 13 05:46:15 2000
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from urda.heanet.ie (urda.heanet.ie [193.1.219.124])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16827F023
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 05:46:13 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from leviathan (pc88.heanet.ie [193.1.219.88])
> by urda.heanet.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA28747;
> Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:45:48 GMT
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sender: "Mike Norris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "'!Dr. Joe Baptista'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are they represented?
>Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:45:44 -0000
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Importance: Normal
>
>
>> > > I am increasingly concerned that the ASO has no means of representing
>> > > indivudual ipv4 holders. The virtual infrastructure is represented,
>but
>> > > those people who operate the ipv4 structure (ipv4 holders) have no
>> > > representation whatsoever in the "bottoms up" ICANN process.
>> > >
>> > > Am i wrong in making this conclusion?
>> >
>> > The ASO structure is built on the RIRs (regional Internet registries),
>which
>> > it represents. In Europe, the RIR is RIPE NCC, which is owned by its
>members
>> > i.e. all those who receive IP registry services from it (the ipv4, and
>ipv6,
>> > holders). These members, and others, attend open RIPE meetings three
>times a year and
>> > this forum is used to discuss and form policy, and to elect ASO
>representatives.
>> > In this way, address holders have a real involvement in regional policy
>formation
>> > and representation at the global level.
>>
>> OK - I was not aware of that with respect to RIPE. I anticipate you are a
>> member of RIPE, and that RIPE keeps you informed on this - however - ny
>> ipv4 registries are via ARIN, and I have never been invited to participate
>> in any vote, and have never received notice from ARIN on ICANN
>> issues. I'm not happy with that.
>>
>> I am also unhappy with the fact that no one has remembered to setup a
>> separate constituency for ipv4 holders. I personally do not feel
>> comfortable being represented by ARIN. I want other ipv4 holders to have
>> their say and a means of interacting and participating with each other and
>> having real direct input. At this time in accordance with the existing
>> structure - any representation I may have is non existent. ARIN never
>> asks nor solicits my opinion, and I don't have the opportunities of
>> ownership evident in RIPE.
>>
>> I'd also be interested to know how the APNIC people participate, if that
>> registry is directly owned by the members - like RIPE.
>
>Sounds like your beef is with ARIN, and should be dealt with at that level
>- that's what 'bottom up' implies.
>
>>
>> > In addition, ICANN's membership structure (http://members.icann.org) is
>open
>> > to **all** members of the Internet community and offers a broad and
>global
>> > channel for input and representation in Internet governance.
>>
>> That's not acceptable Mike. I think it's clear to most in the community
>> that the @large membership is quickly becoming an unacceptable farce and
>> has received considerable negative international attention. Including a
>> boycott of the proceeding by President Mubarak of Egypt.
>
>"Those who say politics are disreputable in fact help make it so" (Vaclav
>Havel)
>
>Whatever about the interests of address holders, I'd say you have views
>which would be of interest to the Internet community generally. So why not
>get involved and try to change what you see as unacceptable?
>
>Regards.
>
>Mike Norris
>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dnso.com
It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR
