Re: IPv4

[Stephen Kent <kent at bbn.com>]

At 9:03 AM -0700 8/9/07, Bill Manning wrote:
> ...
>  > The RIRs are recognized as neutral, primary address space allocators
> >  who have contractual relationships with the folks to whom they
> >  allocate addresses. I think it might be more attractive to the new
> >  holder of address space to have a relationship with an RIR vs. the
> >  former address space holder, a company that might be acquired by
> >  another company, change business orientation, declare bankruptcy, ...
>
>
> 	"...are recognsied..."  - by whom?
> 	"... I think..."	- may not be a shared point of view.

On the IETF list many messages represent points of view that are not 
widely shared :-).

> 	One might assume that when GE issues certs for subnets of its
> 	address space, that a contractual relationship would exist.

I agree that a legal agreement with a large company (e.g., GE or HP) 
might be just as good a guarantee as an analogous agreement with an 
RIR.


> 	And I am pretty sure that GE has been around for quite a few years
> 	longer than all the RIR's combined.

It has, but it has been in and out of various business areas as the 
CEO and Board have decided what is and is not a good place to make 
money as times change.

> 	RIR's are legal entities, just like other companies... and are subject
> 	to the same problems that companies have, e.g. aquired, changed
> 	orientation, bankruptcy... etc.  They are NOT special.


I disagree with your suggestion that the RIRs are not special. They 
are recognized as being "special" by ICANN.

I will not pursue a rat hole  discussion on whether ICANN is "special" :-).

Steve

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf