[ppml] RE: [Nro-comments] Comments on the 10/23/2003 NRO document

[Ray Plzak]

Thanks for your comments Eric.

In proposing any structure for joint activity there is an element of
relying on the good intentions and common interest of the participants.
The structure of the NRO is intended as one where the RIRs  engage in
common activities by common consent. If a proposed activity fails to
gain
this level of common consent then the NRO will not force or impel
dissenting RIRs into the activity via the NRO. The most appropriate way
of
expressing this common consent  is through unanimous agreement.

 > I've also noticed a few folks bringing up the issue of the mixture of
 > operational and policy develoment activites.  I also concur that
these
 > should be seperate functions.  I have yet to see these questions
answered
 > cogently.

As pointed out in the Cover Note, (and the quotes are lifted from tis
document) the NRO is proposed as a vehicle for a number of activities:

- to act as a vehicle to "undertake those roles where the coordinated
action of all the RIRs is required or appropriate. There are coordinated
activities of this nature being performed at present, and this proposed
joint entity provides a formal residence for such activities"

- to act as the vehicle "for interaction between the RIR and number
community and ICANN, undertaking the current roles of the Address
Supporting Organization from ICANN's perspective"

and

- an entity that is "capable of providing continuity of coordination of
number resource administrative functions if so required in the event of
failure of ICANN. "

In the first two cases the NRO acts as a facilitator for the development
of global policy, but for not act as the ultimate body for ratification
of
such policies. It has been the case since the inception of ICANN, and it
is our intention that it remains the case, that this function be
undertaken by ICANN, through mechanisms as proposed in the attached
proposed ASO MpU

However as pointed ou in the cover note, "ICANN is a private corporate
entity, and that its future is one that is not absolutely assured. There
is a risk, as with any private corporate entity, that the entity may
fail.
Failure of ICANN includes the risk of a freezing of the unallocated
number
pool, which in turn places a significant risk in the continued operation
of the registries and the application of their policies. The ultimate
risk
here is a shift in the number administration from the careful
preservation
of uniqueness within the assignment of number resources to one of
chaotic
number movement, with its attendant consequences which appear to
inevitably include a breakdown of the coherency of the Internet's
address
realm. Obviously, this is not an acceptable outcome under any
circumstances."

The challenge faced by the RIRs has been to propose an entity that is
capable of preserving an essential continuity of function, but at the
same
time not assuming the current roles and responsibilities of ICANN. The
approach taken has been to propose an NRO that is capable of undertaking
a
review function through the Number Council, and use the NRO Executive
Council as the body that ratifies proposed policies, acting upon the
recommendation of the Number Council. However these are proposed to be
potential capabilities rather than assumed roles, and the policy process
that the RIRs are committed to remains one that includes a role for
ICANN
within the overall global policy development process.

Ray Plzak
ARIN Board Member



> -----Original Message-----
> From: nro-comments-admin at apnic.net 
> [mailto:nro-comments-admin at apnic.net] On Behalf Of Eric B. Decker
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:25 PM
> To: nro-comments at apnic.net
> Cc: ac-coord at aso.icann.org; arin-announce at arin.net; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [Nro-comments] Comments on the 10/23/2003 NRO document
> 
> 
> 
> I'm one of the ARIN elected members to the ASO/AC and I've been
> watching the development of the NRO proposal since its inception.
> 
> I have a few comments.
> 
> In section 6 of the NRO MoU it states that the NRO EC shall only
> take action by unanimous agreement.  Doesn't that strike anyone
> as a recipe for deadlock?
> 
> I've also noticed a few folks bringing up the issue of the mixture
> of operational and policy develoment activites.  I also concur
> that these should be seperate functions.  I have yet to see
> these questions answered cogently.
> 
> Thanks for your time,
> 
> -c
> cire "i am only an egg" eric
> "I could have done it in a much more complicated
> way", said the Red Queen, immensely proud.
> 			-- Lewis Carrol, Alice in Wonderland
> Eric B. Decker
> email:	cire at deckerstone.net
> _______________________________________________
> Nro-comments mailing list
> Nro-comments at apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/nro-comments
>