[arin-ppml] FW: Proposal: Clarification of draft policy 2009-3 (ARIN-prop-135)
On Feb 23, 2011, at 4:10 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> I can't speak for Matthew. But my understanding is: ARIN's Internic "predecessors"* were contracted by the US Govt to perform the IANA function, and ICANN is currently contracted by the US Govt to perform the IANA function. As such, returning legacy addresses to the IANA/ICANN seems to make sense unless IANA/ICANN would prefer otherwise.
The InterNIC registry function, including personal, systems
and records were transferred by NSI to ARIN at ARIN's inception.
ARIN is operates the registry in question.
> * - To my knowledge, while ARIN made it possible for NSF to release NSI from their IANA responsibilities, the contract was not novated to ARIN and ARIN has never held a contract for the IANA function. If my understanding is incorrect, I would appreciate pointers to correct background. If my understanding is correct, then claims that ARIN is the "successor" are fairly hollow.
No contract is needed, anymore than RIPE NCC or APNIC needing a
contract, nor LACNIC and AfriNIC needing one on their formation.
Collectively, the RIRs participate jointly as the NRO in ICANN,
serving as the ASO (Address Supporting Organization). This is
covered in the ASO and NRO MOU's with ICANN. In each case, the
registrations which from that region prior to the RIR formation
("legacy registrations") where transferred under that RIR. This
shouldn't be surprising given the non-for-profit, non-overlapping
That's not to say that address space can't be returned to IANA or
ARIN as the community decides and in compliance with ARIN's mission.
IANA has indicated their ability to provide stewardship for number
resources even prior to any global policy providing for reallocation,
so there is no difficultly there.
President and CEO