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

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

On 5/2/11 9:27 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> The authority flows down from the US Dept of Commerce. It doesn't go
> from there to the RIRs and back up to ICANN.
> ICANN>>RIRs

what statutory authority?

i see two possible errors in mike's response to owen, john, etc.

first, he characterizes the iana function as an institutional actor, 
and thereby a "higher authority", rather than as a function currently 
contained within a set of functions in, or added to, the contract now 
the subject of review by the department of commerce. see the federal 
register of february 25th for the notice of inquiry.

second, in an error more generally shared than this specific context, 
he removes the specific purposes of diversity of territorial 
jurisdiction and scaling for the initial reformation of the "numbers 
czar" function to one which permits delegation, creating the rir 
responsibilities.

these historic purposes are not modernly inoperative, nor replaced 
without risk by a novel aterritorial responsibility serving no 
diversity of territorial or scaling interests, however beneficial such 
a grant of franchise may be to the recipient.

eric