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

[Mike Burns]

Hi Eric,

I don't think it makes sense to view the RIRs, who are latecomers after all, 
as the top of the totem pole in terms of authority.
As a member who received his allocation prior to ARIN's existence, and all 
the other RIR's existences, I know there is a higher authority.
Whether the contract is being reviewed or not, the contract with DoC exists.

I don't understand the paragraph that begins with the word second, but I 
would like to, could it be rephrased?

I understand that you support the concept of regionality, but there are 
those pesky legacy addresses to consider, and they were allocated in a 
pre-regional Internet.

Would you consider that legacy addresses, at the least, should be portable 
to an alternate registry?

Regards,

Mike






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
To: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflictof 
interest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.