North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Paul Wilson and Geoff Huston of APNIC on IP address allocation ITU v/s ICANN etc

  • From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
  • Date: Wed Apr 27 22:22:01 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Zt1mM1Htp26Ob8mBj6QyFzRnASUWu53YnaAD6PpXdfMavZt050c//IeBTVSzWB6ifIQMgepTU8312MLMOQJuAEbM6zOlEeaM3Hr/cN7LK0qPs8oBNug+l/0lfLyRie/pqrETVXjJrbmLuaaC928ac3899Ft1Q/fyjySqmyA3Kw8=
On 4/28/05, Scott Weeks <[email protected]> wrote:
> Probably, I'll have to research through the ITU site to find out this
> information, but surely these arguments have been presented to the ITU
> while they're making their choice of how to proceed with IP address
> allocation.  Does anyone have a couple of links that support their
> position for doing it the "national allocations" way?

Poke around http://www.nro.net for a detailed correspondence +
submissions on both sides between the RIRs and ITU-T

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian ([email protected])