[Chapter-delegates] Concerns about India's IPv6 Strategy.

Thu Jan 19 11:25:57 PST 2012

Siva, Eric and all chapter Delegates,

There are chapter tools available on the "How to work effectively with your
government", developed by our Policy Department.  It does occur to me,
however, that there is more here to be done.  These are big policy issues
with broad implications, culminating quickly at year's end. I thought of a
few questions has I pondered how to assist.

How can chapters mobilize the citizenry to influence policy makers? What
does it take to leverage communal disappointment, even outrage and turn it
into influence? How can chapters conduct outreach and mobilization to tap
into the needs and sentiments of civil society so there is understanding and
a need to act? It is your activities that can and do make a difference.

I welcome YOUR IDEAS how ISOC Chapter Support can contribute to your
individual and group efforts for your outreach and impact. 

Ted

Ted Mooney
Sr. Director - Membership & Services
The Internet Society
www.isoc.org

Direct Line: 703.439.2774
Cell:           301.980.6446

-----Original Message-----
From: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org
[mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Eric Burger
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:14 PM
To: Sivasubramanian M
Cc: Chapter Delegates
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Concerns about India's IPv6 Strategy.

Has anyone pointed out that India might need more addresses than their
contiguous allocation would offer them? I.e., is it worth doing an
educational campaign in country to let the populace know their government
want to limit economic growth and hold India back compared to other regions
in the world by capping the number of internet addresses available to India?

On Jan 18, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:

> I followed the discussion on APNIC's Policy Mailing List, and the Indian
officials defending the proposal demonstrated an extremely poor
understanding of basic routing and BGP. 
> 
> Whether they were misled by their lack of understanding of how the
Internet works, or whether they have a hidden agenda, I couldn't say.
> 
> Is there any way we can help you SM ? 
> 
> regards
> 
> Carlos
> 
> 
> On Jan 18, 2012, at 5:24 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> As we move towards worldwide IPv6 launch, it becomes important to pay
attention to some developments that threaten to drastically alter the way
IPv6 resources will be deployed.
>> 
>> India is pursuing a proposal - "it is not a proposal for India, it is a
proposal from India" to seek allocation of contiguous IPv6 address block
from APNIC countrywise. At APNIC, Busan, India proposed that large,
contiguous blocks be allotted, country-wise, to all countries in the Region.

>> 
>> In an unpublished letter to the editor of "The Hindu" I wrote and later
posted in the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus List:
>> 
>> It is difficult to see this as anything other than a move to control the
Internet by an anachronistic proposal to nationalize the allocation of
Internet address space. The idea of 'country-wide' and  'contiguous'
allocation together with the implied idea of 'All IPv6 addresses ONLY
through the National Internet Registry',  would result in the unintended(?)
outcome of reducing the Internet from being a free, open and universal
medium to a Government controlled communication platform defined by national
boundaries.  
>> 
>> ( In his response to the discussion in the IGC list, Paul Wilson
confirmed that an Indian NIR is in formation and Nixi has received
in-principle approval from APNIC. He clarified that the NIR does not have
exclusivity within its country or economy and that NIXI has agreed to abide
by this policy. He confirmed that the proposal for IPv6 allocations to
individual countries is under discussion .
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100 )
>> 
>> It is likely that this is another proposal that is a reflection of wrong
inputs to the policy makers. The ISPs do not require any form of Government
help in the process of obtaining address blocks from the Regional Internet
Registry [a National Internet Registry is not really required]. They need to
be free, and continue with the status quo of uncomplicated processes in
obtaining address blocks. With the relatively unlimited IPv6 space, the RIR
processes could actually become a lot less complicated. 
>> 
>> Static IPv4 addresses have been expensive for the end-user in India, hope
this will not be case with IPv6 address, on the present model of RIR - ISP
relationship, free of Government mediation. With continued freedom, could we
hope that the ISPs in India make it an automatic process for the end-users
to obtain static IPv6 user blocks for connecting their computers and other
devices, without bundling IP addresses with expensive bandwidth subscription
plans? 
>> 
>> (Earlier on India's proposal for theNational Internet Registry, I sent
comments from Internet Society India Chennai on December 1, 2009 to the
Executive Secretary of APNIC.
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2009/12/msg00001.h
tml The PDF file as sent is attached)
>> 
>> The transcripts of the Policy Discussion on the proposal 'from' India
(for countrywise allocation of IPv6 addresses to every country) at the Busan
Session is at page :
http://meetings.apnic.net/32/program/policy/transcript#session 3
>> 
>> Naveen Karaparambil Lakshman of our Chapter draws attention to the
following comment during the session by Dmitri Burkov at the Busan Session.
>> 
>> Dmitri Burkov: I have a lot of concerns about these proposals but I don't
want to repeat all the arguments against.  I want to point out only one
issue. I was really surprised at these ideas to use IP addresses for the
personal identifications of citizens. If you want to do this, I say you
don't need just /64 because you fill all the paper. First of all, I think
it's improper usage in the wrong direction.  Thank you.
>> 
>> While we move closer to worldwide IPv6 Launch, these developments in the
Asia Pacific Region requires attention. This proposal would come up again at
APRICOT 2012 to be held during 21 February - March 2, in the Nixi turf, so
there is a definite likelihood of a proposal like this voted in. 
>> 
>> I may not attend this meeting. I am posting this in the list for
discussion on these concerns. If these concerns are valid, I would request
community members to pay attention to the developments on this, and
participate in the Delhi meeting in person or by Internet 
>> 
>> http://www.apricot2012.net/participation
>> 
>> 
>> Sivasubramanian M
>> ISOC India Chennai
>> http://isocindiachennai.org
>> 
>> 
>> facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG
>> LinkedIn:  goo.gl/eUt7s
>> Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a
>> http://internetstudio.in/
>> 
>> <Internet Society India Chennai comments on the application from NIxi to
form a National Internet Registry in
India.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates