[ppml] RIR's to leave IANA / ICANN
billd at cait.wustl.edu
Tue Oct 8 12:15:44 EDT 2002
> 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,
> 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.
It is my opinion as a member of ARIN, that the BOT is perfectly capable of
representing my interests in the matters related to the other RIRs, ASO-AC,
IANA and ICANN. When I feel that they are not representing my interests
properly, I will advise them of my differing interests......
It is my opinion as an ARIN-AC member that the AC is not specifically
recused from involvement in issues beyond the narrow interpetation of IP
address allocation policy.... that is, the allocation of addresses by ARIN
to it's constituents. Whereas the addresses available to ARIN, now and in
the future, are a broader 'related' allocation issue, I believe that our
involvement would be at the invitation of the BOT.... but I would look for
something more substantive than the casual invitation made during the AC
If the BOT wishes the AC to craft and proffer a statement to the BOT or some
entity outside of ARIN, or to provide advise on a formal basis beyond the
narrow allocation policy definition, then I believe that BOT through the
President of ARIN needs to make an explicit request of the AC for such as
statement or advise. Such a request should state clearly the issue(s) which
need addressing and the range of consideration that it feels is appropriate.
Anything less than this (IMHO) causes the AC to deviate from its expressed
role (and perhaps more appropriate expertise). I believe the AC would have
an obligation to make a formal reply under these conditions.
The AC is under no obligation to join this discussion otherwise. If you
wish (as you are) to lobby the AC for a more active role in this area, then
that is appropriate activity on your behalf.
Personally, I would like you to make an explicit proposal (much as I outline
above) to the Chair of the AC or to the AC membership in general through the
AC maillist.... if you wish the AC to debate its role and interest in
advising the BOT on issues that you feel are important.
CAIT Senior Technical Associate
More information about the ARIN-PPML