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

Mike Burns mike at nationwideinc.com
Sat Apr 30 16:48:51 EDT 2011

>What higher organizational level?

>The Number Resource Organization and Address Supporting Organization roles 
>at the IANA are the collective committee of representatives from the 5 
>RIRs. >Global address policy results from the same policy being passed by 
>all RIRs and then ratified (a formality) at the IANA level. The "higher 
>level organization" is >completely and directly controlled by the RIRs, as 
>it should be.


I think you misconstrue the relationship and have the tail wagging the dog.
ICANN/IANA is the entity that delegated the roles you describe, the NRO and 
ASO roles, to committees which are run by representatives from the RIRs.

"The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (the IANA), as part of the 
administrative functions associated with management of the Internet Protocol 
(IP) address space, is responsible for evaluating applications for approval 
of new Regional Internet Registries. "

All I am saying is that although this is not a new "regional" registry, it 
is a registry which could compete with the RIRs, and why not have IANA 
decide, since the representatives of the RIRs may have a vested interest in 
"regional-only" self-preservation which would affect their votes?

I have nothing against the RIRs being heard and their case presented, but if 
their decision is dispositive, it appears as if the fox is guarding the 


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list