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 ---------