[arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflict of interest/ IP address policy pitched directly to ICANN

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

I don't see anything here that is a formal ICANN policy proposal.  I
see a suggestion from what would be best described as a "crank" of
a proposal to privatize IP addressing.  Any large organization gets
dozens of "crank" mails a year.  Are you implying ICANN is not capable
of handling such correspondence and is actually giving credibility to
this crank?  Because I don't see that.

Ted

On 4/29/2011 1:13 PM, McTim wrote:
> All,
>
> While threads are coming fast and furious this week,
> I thought that it might be useful to step back and look at
> a policy proposal that fundamentally affects our policy making.
>
> On the http://icann.org/en/correspondence/ page is a proposal
> (look for "Policy Proposal on IP Address Registration Services"
> on the above url).  there are multiple versions.
>
> In addition to the proposed policy, there is a letter of even greater
> concern at http://icann.org/en/correspondence/holtzman-to-jeffrey-02mar11-en.pdf
>
> This one says that the numbering community (the ASO) isn't capable of making
> objective decisions regarding this proposal, so it ask that "a more open forum",
> one overseen by a neutral director or the NTIA.
>
> It seems this is an "end run" around the global PDP, something which I
> think the
> ARIN community should understand fully at this juncture in deliberations.
>