[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-136 Services Opt-out Allowed for Unaffiliated Address Blocks

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri Feb 25 12:00:10 EST 2011

On Feb 25, 2011, at 1:27 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:

> On Feb 25, 2011, at 2:36 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 2011, at 12:31 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>>> Where does such authority come from?
>> - From the same government that allocated the addresses to the legacy holder in the first place.
>> You can't have it both ways. 
> That seems fair - I agree.
>> Either:
>> 1) The USG had the authority to allocate addresses to legacy holders, and still has the authority to delegate management of those address to ICANN -> NRO -> ARIN, or
>> 2) The USG has no authority in the matter, and thus legacy holders have no claim in the first place.
> Option #1 above is perfectly reasonable.  There is a DoC contract with ICANN for the IANA function.  In the Joint Project Agreement related to that IANA contract, the DoC instructs ICANN to maintain legal agreements with the RIRs.  A review of the NRO history reveals only a non-binding letter of affirmation with the NRO, but let's just assume that is adequate.  In the affirmation letter, ICANN delegates responsibility for allocating addresses and "facilitating" development of policies.  I do not see the delegation of other powers such as "reclamation" authority etc.  Maybe I'm missing something?
You seem to have left out the MOU: http://www.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm

and also the ICANN bylaws: http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#VIII

Those documents combined make it pretty clear that number policy responsibility and address
authority rest in the NRO/ASO.

Again, revocation is the wrong term. Deregistration is a more accurate description of what would


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110225/c38d2d96/attachment.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list