Fernando, On Jan 24, 2024, at 3:47 PM, Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 07:39 David Conrad, <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> On Jan 24, 2024, at 4:19 AM, Fernando Frediani <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > No government should ever be able to mandate anything related to policy >> > development and how they apply to IP space assignment and use. >> I’m actually curious: why do you believe you (or the RIRs) are able to tell >> governments what they can or cannot mandate? > > > I think you are not following this discussion and trying to speak about > soemthing different from what is being discussed.
I actually am following the discussion and I am trying to follow your argumentation in response to Christopher Hawker that you started with: "One thing that must end in APNIC is the possibilit for NIR to have their own set of policies. This just doesn't make sense, even if they don't conflict with APNIC's policies." As Akinori has pointed out, JPNIC develops its own policies within the APNIC policy framework which is, in turn, developed within the framework defined in RFC 7020 (and its predecessors). You state above that NIRs (e.g., JPNIC) must not be able to do that, even if those policies “don’t conflict with APNIC policies.” Your statement suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationships between APNIC and the NIRs that I’m trying to understand. > No government is able in practice to determinate what should be the policies > for IP address assignment anywhere. Somewhat orthogonal to the proposal, but I remain curious: why do you believe this? My understanding is that a government may, in practice, specify pretty much anything they like, including policy for IP addressing, for entities within their economy. >> I’m unsure what you mean by this. Simply, NIRs were (and are, as far as I >> know) intended to provide Internet registration services for entities within >> their economy. Overarching guidelines for the policies by which those >> service are provided are defined within the Internet numbers registry system >> (see RFC 7020) but those guidelines do not carry the force of law: they >> require the voluntary cooperation of the parties involved to be effective. > > Maybe your conception about NIRs may not be very accurate and the difefence > between them and the RIRs and the hierarchy that exists. Perhaps, although I suspect I have been doing this a bit longer than you. Another possibility could be your mental model for how the Internet numbers registration system works, as simple and appealing as you may find it or how much you’d like it to be so, doesn’t actually fully correspond to reality. Regards, -drc
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
