[ppml] RIR's to leave IANA / ICANN

[John M. Brown]

Its interesting that the ASO and the RIR's differ on the
next course of action.

The ICANN By Laws, state that the ASO's have an advisory 
responsibility to the ICANN BOD, Not the RIR's.  Yet the
RIR's are complaining about ICANN not listening to them.

Maybe the RIR's, which elect members to the ASO, should get
the ASO more directly involved in the discussions with ICANN,
and that might cause them to "be heard more"..... 
Don't know, I'm just a dumb geek.

As far as the ARIN AC, people seem to think our abilities are 
limited, when according to the ARIN By Laws, they are not so
limiting.  There is no "expansion" as you say happening at the
AC level.

Article VIII, Section 3 "Function" of the ARIN By-laws:

"It shall be the function of the Advisory Council to act in an
advisory capacity to the Board of Trustees on matters as the BOT
may, from time to time, request involving IP allocation policies 
and related matters." 

How/Where ARIN gets its /8's from, is an allocation policy matter,
IMHO.

How ARIN interacts and holds itself out WRT the ICANN/IANA process
is a "related matter".

I have not seen the ARIN BOT officially state that they wish the 
AC to not be involved in this issue.  Quite the opposite I believe.

As the By-laws further state " ...the President of ARIN shall be the
point of contact between the AC and the BOT..."

In the recent tele-conf call, Aug 2002, the President *did* invite the
AC to be more active and stated that the BOT would be receptive to 
a statement from the AC.

Let me point out, that I do NOT see the AC as another BOT.  


john


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barbara Roseman [mailto:broseman at karoshi.com] 
> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:56 PM
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: John M. Brown; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] RIR's to leave IANA / ICANN
> 
> 
> Randy, thank you for sharing your email. 
> 
> This position -- that changing the IANA function in regard to 
> the RIRs may have unintended consequences for other 
> protocol-oversight entities -- is one I've heard from other 
> technically oriented folk involved in the ICANN reform 
> discussion, and it is an objection I take seriously. The ASO 
> AC has chosen not to make a statement in further support of 
> the RIR position because we are not all in agreement on this issue.
> 
> As for whether the ARIN AC should involve themselves in this 
> matter, if individuals want to bring it before the membership 
> for discussion and feedback to the Board, I think that's 
> terrific. But I don't see a role for the ARIN AC in guiding 
> the Board on this issue. It is not related to "policy" in the 
> narrow sense, and I don't think the ARIN Advisory Council 
> should expand their purview to include these broader issues. 
> How we choose to participate as individual members of ARIN is 
> an altogether different matter.
> 
> -Barb Roseman
> 
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Randy Bush wrote:
> 
> > > ARIN and the other RIR's have posted several letters, based on
> > > staff and Board positions, that indicate they (the RIR's) are
> > > supporting a departure from the IANA.  Some well placed folks
> > > at IETF and other orgs have commented that it appears to be a 
> > > power grab on the part of the RIR's and that this is ill-advised.
> > 
> > that last part is quite an exaggeration.
> > 
> >     From: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
> >     To: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel at karrenberg.net>
> >     Cc: RIPE Local IR Working Grouo <lir-wg at ripe.net>
> >     Subject: Re: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform
> >     Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 11:06:04 +0900
> > 
> >     to paraphrase from a private conversation:
> > 
> >     note that the iana function is the only formal link between the
> >     ietf and the registries, and we should be careful of 
> what we break.
> >     the ietf does not want to start writing rir (and N 
> other fiefdoms)
> >     consideration sections in rfcs.
> > 
> >     there are a number of different roles of the iana function, what
> >     different parties need from the iana function, and their/our
> >     respective relationships to and through the iana.  the 
> rir position
> >     seems to be to break away from the iana.  the ietf 
> position, such
> >     as it is, seems more to coordinate the non-dnso iana 
> functions in
> >     the iana in a way well detached from icann dnso politics.
> > 
> >     randy
> > 
> > and, though i do not speak for the ietf, i believe the 
> above opinion 
> > to not be uncommon.
> > 
> > randy
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>