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

[Jimmy Hess]

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> Owen,
> The salient point was that the document was accepted by the ICANN Board of
> Directors.
> My reading of this is that while the ASO recommended a policy, it was
> decided by ICANN.

The mere acceptance of a memo does not itself provide an authority
not specified in the memo.

cf.  The US senate's approval is required for the US to enter treaties
with other states.
If  the Senate ratifies a treaty with the Canadian government to recognize the
"Canadian Government" as a body managing a certain piece of land (Canada);

Would you then say that this is proof  US Government >> Canada Govt'  ?
E.g. Taking the official action of recognizing another organization
as responsible for something, automatically makes the recognizer superior?

I would say no...
If the senate don't ratify the treaty,  or they later decide to
unilaterally repeal
or "alter" a treaty,  that doesn't mean the Canadian gov'ts right to exist
has been removed,  or they must abide by whatever new terms
may be dictated at US direction.

Recognizing the existence of RIRs alone,  as responsible for setting addressing
policy, doesn't automatically give an organization control over those RIRs,
or any right to interfere with their cooperation or mandate policies
not agreed upon.

Ditto.  If the US gov't decides to make a treaty to recognize a rogue
"alternative
government"  in Canada.    That act alone does not make the existing
administration illegitimate, and the alternative government legitimate.

The people, the population, the community responsible for those structures,
actually has to accept the change, and cooperate.



ICANN chooses to recognize and coordinate with the RIRs.
And mutual cooperation is essential, for the entire system to work effectively.

That is different from having any authority over RIRs or what policies they may
implement;  ICANN already provided that it doesn't have authority over RIRs.

Yes, the ICANN board could declare war against RIRs, and futz up the IANA
function,  or otherwise dishonor their agreements, but it would not be the least
bit conducive to maintaining a stable internet.

> 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.

Regards,

--
-JH