On Monday, April 20, 1998 5:45 PM, Berislav Todorovic[SMTP:BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu] wrote:
<snip>
@
@Now, with the transition you proposed, a user would have to delegate their
@reverse domains to a regional registry of a country which does not have
@anything to do with them.
I am sorry I was not more clear. In my opinion, you have
at least three levels at play when you are looking at IP
address management. They might be labeled as follows.
1. Stewardship - Traditional IANA-like Role
2. Management - RIPE-like Role
3. Operations - DNS, IN-ADDR.ARPA, etc.
In my opinion, these three "levels" could be handled by
different groups depending on the decisions made at the
Stewardship level.
The scheme I was suggesting distributes the Stewardship.
It is like creating 256 IANAs. From there, you have to imagine
that each of the 256 would evolve in their own way AND that
evolution would depend on input from the stakeholders in the
address space. This might result in the Stewardship being in
Europe with the Management handed back to ARIN and the
IN-ADDR.ARPA handled by the ISP/C.
The goal here is NOT to delegate IP address space to people
or companies with networks that fail. The goal is to delegate
Stewardship (or what some call Trusteeship) and then to have
those stewards/trustees work with the stakeholders to find the
best management and operations.
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI
-------- Logged at Tue Apr 21 00:56:49 MET DST 1998 ---------
