Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation

Martin Hannigan hannigan at
Mon Sep 14 15:14:08 UTC 2009

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 7:43 AM, John Curran <jcurran at> wrote:

> On Sep 11, 2009, at 6:52 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> >
> > I honestly don't think that it's up to them to create a set-aside
> > either,
> > hence my comment about behind the scenes activities. I appreciate you
> > detailing that, but I honestly don't think it matters since as you
> > mentioned
> > you get accused of this all of the time. I would expect that ICANN
> > would not
> > only follow the rules, but safeguard them as well.
[ clip ]

> what would normally have been a behind the scenes implementation issue
> has now
> been publicly detailed, and I, for one, thank the IANA for their clear
> and
> timely communications on this matter.

I do as well. ICANN does good work in this area and I would not want to
appear as though I am saying otherwise.

> > Numbering policy usually goes to the members of each of the RIR
> > communities,
> > just as the IANA to RIR policy did. The algorithm itself is great. The
> > set-aside is the problem.
> This is not formation of global Internet numbering policy, it's
> implementation
> of the existing policy regarding IANA to RIR /8 block assignments.
> Regardless,
> the global nature of the Internet means that we'll all deal with
> connectivity
> issues with these blocks once they're allocated. Any and all efforts
> that the
> networking community can take now to get these blocks cleaned up now
> would be
> most helpful.

Well, ok then :-). I agree to disagree. Anything that affects the flow or
quality of IPv4 address space is a policy issue in my mind, especially when
a justification for an action is linked to a social issue. I know that it
was said that ICANN didn't really mean it when they said that they created
this action with "developing economies" in mind, at least not in the way
that it is defined[1], but it's hard to say after the fact.

Best Regards,



More information about the NANOG mailing list