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

[Jimmy Hess]

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> 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
No... it's not the tail wagging the dog;  you have two separate dogs.

The RIR dog, and the ICANN dog; each dog has its own different jobs.
Neither dog is master of the other.

One dog is the seeing-eye dog,  the other dog is the drug sniffing dog.
The proposal to the ICANN dog is asking the drug-sniffing dog to lead the blind.

> 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?

The IANA function  maintains the list of  number resources assigned.
In the case of IP addresses and AS numbers,  which RIR  IP addresses
and AS numbers are assigned to.

At this point, it would be a bit pointless to for any new registry to apply, as
responsibility for the entire IPv4 address space has already been granted
to RIR organizations, the assignments are not revokable, the RIRs currently
do not provide any way to release or transfer resources between RIRs,
and no entity other than RIRs can enable transfers of resources between
registries.

A new additional registry could receive IPv6 space and AS numbers, however.


If anyone wanted to make a new registry, of this nature, it would be in their
interest to work with the community, and the RIRs, first.

The spurious, frivolous  "conflict of interest"   claims to attempt to hold
the discussion outside the normal community venues for IP addressing policy
discussion,  are obviously an attempt to end-run  around things like rational
discussion of proposals by the proper community,  and comment by RIRs
the IP address space was given to.


The bottom up policy process, would indicate a proposal like this goes
to the community first.

If the communities accept the proposal, but the RIR boards don't go
along with this,
they abandon the proposal despite proven support,


_then_  the author might have a case to seek out other (unusual) venues.
But by sending some letter to ICANN,  things are made to look as an attempt
to sneak something in / slip something by the community.


> 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
> henhouse.

No, a horde of hens are guarding the henhouse.
If  the entire RIR community is being characterized a 'fox';  that is
really quite strange.

--
-JH