[arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflict of interest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN
dogwallah at gmail.com
Sun May 1 00:59:06 EDT 2011
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
>> 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.
representatives from the regional communities, not the RIRs
themselves. In Africa, for example, we recently elected a ASO
Councillor who was not previously an active member of the RIR
community, but an active member of the larger Internet
Governance/technical and policy community.
I would dipute both your and Owen characterisations. The fox is
neither guarding the henhouse, nor is the ASO AC "completely and
directly controlled by 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
I think you mean ICANN here.
> decide, since the representatives of the RIRs may have a vested interest in
> "regional-only" self-preservation which would affect their votes?
"The ASO Address Council is responsible for the organizational roles of:
1. undertaking a role in the global policy development process as
described in attachment A of this document.
2. providing recommendations to the Board of ICANN concerning the
recognition of new RIRs, according to agreed requirements and policies
as currently described in document [ICP-2]."
so the "vested interest" is in following ICP-2, which does proscribe
regionality. However, none of the folk who would like to make money
in IPv4 trading seem to want to set up a new "RIR" (complete with
allocation and assignment authority), so the regionality argument
regarding Conflict of Interest doesn't seem to apply.
The ICANN by-laws are pretty clear on this issue:
"ARTICLE VIII: ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
Section 1. DESCRIPTION
1. The Address Supporting Organization (ASO) shall advise the Board
with respect to policy issues relating to the operation, assignment,
and management of Internet addresses."
so while it may ultimately be an ICANN Board decision, it will be the
ASO that "advises" the ICANN BoT.
BTW, there is an independent review of the ASO in progress:
the results of which should be interesting.
As for other fora where this could be discussed (besides ICANN), the
IGF (global and regionals) springs to mind, as does the OECD and even
perhaps the CoE. None of whom would be the "deciders", but could
provide platforms for wider discussion (and capacity building) around
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
More information about the ARIN-PPML