FW: [aso-policy] ICANN/USG contract for IANA function

Kim Hubbard kimh at arin.net
Thu Mar 2 12:55:36 EST 2000

Below is a message sent to ICANN regarding the RIR's concern over the
recently signed contract between ICANN and the USG relating to IANA


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aso-policy at aso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-aso-policy at aso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Paul Wilson
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 4:00 AM
To: Mike Roberts
Cc: Louis Touton; aso-policy at lists.aso.icann.org; k13 at nikhef.nl; Ken
Fockler; Pindar Wong
Subject: [aso-policy] ICANN/USG contract for IANA function

To: Mike Roberts
Cc: Pindar Wong, Ken Fockler, Rob Blokzijl, Louis Touton, "aso-policy"
mailing list

The Regional Internet Registries (APNIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC) wish to express
our concern at the signing of the "Contract Between ICANN and the United
States Government for Performance of the IANA Function", which has been
recently posted to the ICANN web site:


We are concerned specifically by the lack of consultation by ICANN with the
ASO, Address Council or RIRs themselves prior to signing this agreement, or
during the drafting of the related ICANN proposal, which was apparently
finalised on 2 Feb 2000:


We also express serious concern at the inclusion in this contract of policy
provisions which are currently the subject of specific proposals within the
ASO framework, and which are therefore not supported by the consensus of the
ASO or Internet community.

The ICANN Bylaws define ICANN's responsibility to "refer proposals for
substantive policy" to the ASO where the content relates to the ASO's area
of responsibility, while the ASO MoU clearly defines the ASO's
responsibility for address policy.  These documents are available at:

http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/aso-mou.html (section 4b)

The RIRs believe that the ICANN/USG Contract contains provisions based on
substantive policies related to IP address management which are not
currently accepted as consensus policies of either the Address Council or
the Internet community.  Specifically:

(1) The policy under which ICANN can make allocations of address space is
the subject of a specific proposal raised on the aso-policy mailing list on
20 January 2000 (see
http://aso.icann.org/mailing-lists/aso-policy/0001/msg00004.html), and on
which the Address Council has not finished deliberating.

(2) The administration of the "cable network block" 24/8 is the subject of a
specific RIR proposal to IANA, which has not been answered.

(3) The term "globally specified applications" is not recognised by the
address community, and is clearly subject to very wide interpretation.

While specific policies contained within the new contract are under
reconsideration, and while important policy terms of the contract are
ambiguous, it is not reasonable for ICANN to assume that such policies are
recognised by consensus, nor to enter into significant contracts on the
basis of that assumption without consultation with the relevant Supporting
Organisation, the ASO.

We therefore request formally that this contract be subject to review by the
Address Council prior to its expiry on 30 September 2000, and that no
further contract or extension to this contract be undertaken without all
policy-related terms being specifically approved by the AC.


Paul Wilson, APNIC,
on behalf of APNIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC.

Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC               <pwilson at apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net                          ph/fx +61 7 3367 0490/82
See you at APRICOT 2000!  28 Feb - 2 Mar  http://www.apricot2000.ne.kr

*       on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy
*   To unsubscribe:  send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request at aso.icann.org

More information about the ARIN-announce mailing list