[arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflict of interest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN
owen at delong.com
Mon May 2 18:17:06 EDT 2011
On May 2, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> The salient point was that the document was accepted by the ICANN Board of Directors.
I believe that acceptance was a formality at the time. However, at this time, since it has
been accepted, it specifies that the ASO/NRO define global policy for number resources
and are autonomous and free from interference by the ICANN Board.
> My reading of this is that while the ASO recommended a policy, it was decided by ICANN.
> You may call that a formality, but to me the relevant positions of authority are clear.
> I grant that it would appear better to the world community if the decision were made with expressed community support.
> Perhaps, as I suggested earlier, both IETF and DoC should be involved in the decision.
You are welcome to involve whoever you want in the decision. Anyone may propose,
comment on, express support for or opposition to any global policy proposal in each
fo the 5 regions. However, to make a change to global policy, it has to go through the
global policy proposal process documented as I described.
> But to ask the RIRs whether to dilute their position by allowing private competing registries is a question asked and answered.
You make this claim and yet I have yet to see a single global proposal to this effect.
I'm not saying I would support such a proposal... I would not. However, you haven't even
asked as near as I can tell. As such, how can you claim that the question has been
asked and answered?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Owen DeLong
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc: John Curran ; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 3:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflict of interest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN
> On Apr 30, 2011, at 1:48 PM, Mike Burns 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.
> Sort of...
>> "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. "
> Look again at the header for the ICP-2 Document (emphasis mine):
> IMPORTANT NOTICE. The following Internet Coordination Policy is being posted for the information of the Internet community. It contains a statement of policy followed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) in administering the system for allocation and assignment of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.
> This document was developed through ICANN's Address Supporting Organization (ASO) with the assistance of APNIC, ARIN, and RIPE NCC, was recommended by the ASO's Address Council, and on 4 June 2001 was accepted by the ICANN Board of Directors as a statement of essential requirements for the recognition of new Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), in supplementation to section 9 of the ASO-Memorandum of Understanding, and acknowledged it as a framework for consideration of applications for recognition of new RIRs.
> Comments on this document are welcome and should be directed to comments at icann.org.
> Note the emphasized phrase... The document was developed through the ASO (a committee of the RIRs) and was recommended by the ASOs AC (a committee of representatives elected BY the RIR communities).
> The number resource administration portion of IANA is governed entirely by the RIRs and that is, as I said,
> the proper bottom-up way things should be managed.
>> 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?
> Again, what part of IANA would you have decide? IMHO, this would have to rest in the NRO.
> See also:
> The NRO (Number Resource Organization) which is a forum of the 5 RIRs is given the role of the ASO
> as defined in the ICANN charter. The ASO (Address Supporting Organization) is essentially fully autonomous
> with ICANN under the above referenced document.
> There is no authority at ICANN to override the RIRs collective decisions.
>> 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.
> I disagree with your characterization of the RIRs as a fox. In reality, the above referenced documents
> make it quite clear that the process is governed by the bottom-up community-consenus policy process.
> You can make changes to any global policy and such changes could override the MOU and/or the
> ICP-2 document. However, to make those changes, you must acquire community consensus for them
> in each of the 5 RIRs as a global policy proposal.
> Much like getting an amendment to the US constitution requires ratification by 2/3rds of the state
> To me, this seems right and good.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML