[arin-ppml] FW: Proposal: Clarification of draft policy 2009-3 (ARIN-prop-135)

[John Curran]

On Feb 23, 2011, at 6:48 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2011, at 2:46 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> The InterNIC registry function, including personal, systems
>> and records were transferred by NSI to ARIN at ARIN's inception.  
>> ARIN is operates the registry in question.  
> 
> This may be true, but it doesn't address the question of IANA.  Even if ARIN was acting as the "successor registry" for global address allocation during the period prior to ICANN, the US Govt clearly chose to recognize ICANN as the IANA.  The IANA contract with ICANN explicitly includes oversight of address allocations.  Delegation of registry responsibilities doesn't change that situation.

Agreed.

>> Collectively, the RIRs participate jointly as the NRO in ICANN, 
>> serving as the ASO (Address Supporting Organization).  This is 
>> covered in the ASO and NRO MOU's with ICANN.  
> 
> (Understood - thanks also for the background you provided in your previous message on this topic.)
> 
> Through contract with NTIA/DoC, ICANN has been delegated a governmental responsibility which we call the IANA.  The acronym literally includes the word "authority", so I'll posit that IANA has the US Government's delegated authority*.  However, each RIR represents a constituency as I've outlined above.  My view is that constituency and authority meet at the NRO-ASO interface, and I think this is an elegant system.**  However, the recognition of ASO-NRO by ICANN does not diminish the role and responsibility of IANA.

Correct.

>> In each case, the
>> registrations which from that region prior to the RIR formation
>> ("legacy registrations") where transferred under that RIR. This
>> shouldn't be surprising given the non-for-profit, non-overlapping
>> service regions.
> 
> This is a fair argument, but it's one that needs to be formalized.  As Matthew pointed out in a parallel message, the historical distinction of legacy holders doesn't seem to reinforce their inclusion in ARIN's constituency.  And while it might never have mattered before, it does matter now that IPv4 addresses are a scarce resource - because people may be motivated to behave differently now, and legacy holders may wish to act outside the regulation of ARIN policy.
> 
> To this end, I think IANA should be called upon to clarify the relationship of legacy holders.  Until this is done, I think the most responsible approach for ARIN to take is deference to IANA on legacy resource issues.

Interesting assertion.  In any event, to the extent that there has 
been IANA guidance regarding legacy allocations, ARIN has complied: 
<http://www.iana.org/procedures/updating-legacy-classa.html>

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN