[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks
On Feb 15, 2011, at 4:12 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
After the IANA function was contracted to ICANN by the US Dept of
Commerce (the current contracting agency for these tasks), the RIRs
and ICANN entered into an agreement whereby the RIRs would serve the
function of of ICANN's Address Supporting Organization, responsible
for "global number resource policy development".
Thanks for this feedback. I'm happy to report that my understanding of history is in-line with the events you have described.
However, I would be interested in your comments on the current relationship between ARIN and IANA/ICANN. Specifically, I gather that the NRO has proposed a framework that was only partially acknowledged by IANA, and that IANA has asked for a legal contract that has never materialized. Are there any actual commitments in-force? Does anything guarantee that ARIN will continue to have a role in IANA policy creation, or even recognition by IANA?
The ASO and NRO MOU's are at www.nro.net<http://www.nro.net>, and signed by all parties;
I am unaware of any requests for changes from IANA/ICANN or the NRO.
FYI - RFC 2860 is also applicable, as it notes that the IAB/IESG (of IETF)
has significant authority in these matters, but agrees that certain technical
IANA tasks regarding operation of registries may be actually be performed
Regarding guarantees of the future, there are none, nor should there
necessarily be any such guarantees, as the system works because of
multiple cooperating entities (IANA/ICANN, IAB/IETF/ISOC, NRO/RIRs)
none of which attempt to claim autonomous authority but instead must
each cooperate with the others to perform appropriately and confirm its
value to the overall ecosystem.
It might not be how others would set things up, but we have existence
proof in the Internet that the model is rather successful.
In your proposal,
you might consider some way to reconcile acknowledging ICANN/IANA's
policy authority while not acknowledging the NRO/RIR policy authority
without contradicting the RIRs serving under agreement as ICANN's
policy body for Internet number resources. I believe that would
significantly strengthen the policy proposal if that is your goal.
If I understand the root of your comment, it is that: IANA has delegated responsibility* for IP number policy to the NRO. Effectively this creates a circular dependency in which the IANA is comprised of the RIRs, and the RIRs are subject to IANA, etc.
No, my point is that you indicate that the IANA/ICANN policy should be recognized,
that the RIR policy should not, despite the fact that the RIR policy *is* IANA/ICANN
policy by ICANN's own bylaws and agreements. You literally have a non-sequiter
embedded in the proposal, one that cannot be reconciled without deciding that there
is no policy that applicable, including USG/DoC/NTIA, IAB/IESG, IANA/ICANN or the
President and CEO
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...