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

[Benson Schliesser]

Hi, John.

Thanks for helping me explore this question.  If a global policy is needed, then I'll consider proposing one.  But please indulge me a bit further, as I don't yet understand the need.

On Feb 25, 2011, at 3:37 AM, John Curran wrote:
>> In the context of proposal 136, as well as 133 and 134, you have suggested the need for a global policy discussion.  My question is a result of your suggestion.  Why specifically, in the context of global policy, is this not a matter for ARIN to decide?  As I outlined in my quoted text above, I don't think ICP-2 limits ARIN's ability to decide this issue.  But this is an honest question - if I'm overlooking something I'd like to know.
> 
> My apologies for being unclear - In the policy proposal, you reference
> hypothetical "replacement directory services".  If these entities are 
> allowed under ARIN's local policy framework, then ICP-2 states that 
> ARIN's policies would need to apply in a fair and equitable manner
> these entities just as they apply to ISP's in the region.  Does that
> actually meet your requirements?  I expected otherwise from the policy 
> background statement.

and

On Feb 25, 2011, at 4:00 AM, John Curran wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Perhaps the first sentence?
> 
> "The NRO shall fulfill the role, responsibilities and functions of the ASO as defined 
> within the ICANN Bylaws." <http://www.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm>
> 
> Per the ICANN Bylaws, this includes advising the Board "with respect to policy issues 
> relating to the operation, assignment, and management of Internet addresses."  
> The Board accepted ICP-2 < http://www.icann.org/en/icp/icp-2.htm> as a statement 
> of policy, with the NRO fulfilling ICANN's duties of coordination of number resources 
> and in particular the stable and secure operation of the Internet's number identifier 
> systems.


I see how the ICANN Bylaws and NRO MOU establish a role for the RIRs in policy development.  And I see that there are guidelines for recognizing RIRs in the ICANN-adopted ICP-2 policy.

What I don't see is anything limiting the formation of a registry/registrar system, post-allocation services, etc, especially if done within the scope of a single region.  While prop 136 doesn't directly call for the formation of a registrar system or post-allocation services, I admit that it does imply the opportunity.  However, there is no requirement that "replacement directory services" are provided by a third party - I imagine that the address holder can provide a directory service for themselves.

Another thing I don't see is any requirement that a RIR enforce policy on post-allocation behaviors.  As far as I can tell, this is the realm of RIR-specific "management" policy.  In as much as the RIR is allowed to create policy regulating address resources in their region, it should likewise be able to deregulate those resources.

Perhaps I'm overlooking or misunderstanding something, but I still fail to see the requirement for a global policy associated with prop 136.

Thanks,
-Benson

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110225/bfe42747/attachment.htm>