[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - IAB comment
On Jun 28, 2011, at 0:25, David Kessens <david.kessens at nsn.com> wrote:
> I believe there is a rather significant difference between your reading of
> the MoU between the IETF and ICANN and what it actually says:
> It doesn't say that the IETF has 'a' role in this matter, it says the IETF
> is responsible for 'assignment of specialised address blocks'.
One might argue that the Shared Transition Space isn't "specialized", in that it requires no protocol changes etc; it is merely an unusual administrative assignment. And if there is any purpose for ICANN and the RIRs, it is the administration of community resources. Thus I don't think it's unreasonable for an RIR to exercise mandate in this case.
On the other hand, this would be a new / unique administrative category, and it would be ideal if the greater community was in consensus. Thus my previous recommendation that we (re)try the IETF, certainly before acting alone.