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

[John Curran]

On Apr 29, 2011, at 4:13 PM, McTim wrote:
> 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.
> ...
> 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.

While I do believe that the ASO and constituent RIRs are quite capable of
hosting the discussion any proposals to restructure the Internet number 
resource system and also manage the potential for conflict of interest, I'm 
not certain that consideration of such a significant matter by only the ASO
& RIRs is in our best interests.  My basis for such a statement is based on
two points: first, the appearance or assumption of a conflict of interest 
may remain no matter how open and transparent the consideration process, 
and secondly, a change of this fundamental to the nature of Internet number 
registry system warrants input from the widest possible community.  I would
hope that the ARIN community would take an opportunity to get involved in
such discussions, and help educate others on the priorities and goals that 
are valued in the region.

ARIN indicated (in correspondance to ICANN) a willingness to participate: 
<http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/curran-to-beckstrom-02mar11-en.pdf>

"While ARIN and the other Regional Internet Registries are obligated 
to follow the framework agreed to in ICP-2 and related guidelines such 
as the IETF’s RFC 2050, the structure of the Internet number registry 
system is substantially unchanged since inception. This stability in 
design is certainly a valued feature given the instrumental role of the 
Internet number registry system in reliable Internet operations, but may 
not be the optimum structure in light of the many changes taking place 
in the Internet today (including IPv4 depletion & IPv6 transition, 
internationalization of Internet multi-stakeholder oversight, and ongoing 
developments in cyber security.)  ARIN would welcome an opportunity to 
participate in any and all discussions regarding how to best evolve the 
Internet number registry system, and would consider ICANN instrumental 
in leading such discussions in forums globally as appropriate."

Presently, there doesn't appear to be a statement of actual problems that
would be addressed by fundamental changes to the Internet registry system,
so it is not at all clear if there is any interest on ICANN's part in
pursing discussion of the matter.  ARIN will continue to monitor and 
certainly keep folks apprised of how to get involved if such discussions 
should appear in the future.

FYI (and thanks for noting this issue!)
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN