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

[Owen DeLong]

On May 2, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Mike Burns wrote:

> 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'm in the same boat with respect to my IPv4 resources and I still disagree with you about authority.

The DoC involvement at this point is largely a historical fluke more than a meaningful authority over the
address space or the policies that govern it.

I think that if USDoC attempted to instruct APNIC or any of the other non-ARIN RIRs in what they should
do with IPv4 policy, you would see them tell the USDoC that it is a very nice thing that there are borders.

> I don't understand the paragraph that begins with the word second, but I would like to, could it be rephrased?
> 
I believe he refers to the fact that initially, number policy was the realm of a single person (Jon Postel) who
later worked to create a structure under which that authority could be delegated specifically for the purposes
of territorial diversity and regional self-governance.

> 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.
> 
Not entirely and not so pesky. Each of them have been regionalized already and each RIR has their
fraction of legacy resources for which they are responsible. Though they were allocated prior to 
regions, that is rather irrelevant. Much as the creation of the continents occurred prior to national
boundaries is rather irrelevant to the fact that we now have national boundaries. Much as the
fact that national boundaries as they existed in 487 A.D. are now largely irrelevant to current
national boundaries other than as a historical context.

> Would you consider that legacy addresses, at the least, should be portable to an alternate registry?
> 
No. An alternate registry system does nothing to improve the situation for the address
using community and only serves to increase confusion, decrease stability and otherwise
incorporate motivations other than community consensus into the policy process.

Owen

> 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. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.