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

[McTim]

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> I don't see anything here that is a formal ICANN policy proposal.

I would tend to agree with you if there was a template for proposals
that ICANN uses, but AFAIK, there isn't.

 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.

ICANN will treat it seriously enough to respond to the letter I think.
 Putting it before the Board is a different matter, but that is also
quite possible.  They will probably say "we have a SO to deal with
this, pitch it to them".

I agree with JC, the ASO and constituent RIRs are quite capable of
dealing with this AND manage potential conflict of interest issues,
but I wouldn't be surprised if a letter to NTIA was the next step
after an ICANN reply.  I also agree that a wider discussion might be
useful.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel