[arin-ppml] Fw: Accusationof fundamentalconflictofinterest/IPaddress policypitched directly to ICANN

[Mike Burns]

Hi Owen,


  What higher level is there than the community which is being governed?

  This can get so tedious and semantic. Is the governor higher than the governed? I say yes, you say no.
  Since he derives his power from the consent of the governed, and answers to them via elections, you could say he is lower than the governed.
  But if you want something adjudicated between yourself and your neighbor, then the governor is the higher authority.
  You can go around and around. If  you think the DoC is the source of authority, you view things in one direction.
  If you think the community is the source of authority, you view things in the other direction.
  What is clear is that there is a level that is called to approve (rubberstamp) the decisions related to  new registries.
  This level is being asked to make the decision about allowing a new private registry.
  If that level is answerable to the community in one way or another, let the community use it's authority over that level.
  If the ICANN board does decide the issue and you don't like that, I guess you could try to change ICANN policy through community participation.


    The proposed private registry after all, would be on the same level and performing the same function as the RIRs.

  Yes... You once again conflate the RIR and the RIR community. 

  I don't see the problem with my statement. The new private registry would be performing the same functions as the RIRs, would you accede that?



    ICANN is the higher level, in my mind, based on their clear approval responsiblity for new RIRs, and their predating the RIRs.
    ICANN has a policymaking apparatus which is being appealed to by the writer of the letter which started this thread.

  Your mind is clearly confused on multiple levels...


  ICANN does not predate RIRs. Both RIPE and APNIC, as does ARIN.


  ICAN was formed in October of 1998.


  APNIC was formed in 1992.
  RIPE NCC was formed in 1992
  ARIN was formed in 1993


  Their approval responsibility for new RIRs is delegated to them by the RIRs and serves as a
  self-imposed check-and-balance on the RIR system. ICANN cannot approve a new RIR without
  the consent of the RIRs (as expressed through the NRO which is comprised of the RIRs and
  members elected by the RIR communities). Neither can ICANN withhold such approval
  except in a case where they feel that some aspect of the documented policy and procedures
  has not been met.


  ICANN has no apparatus for making number policy other than the ASO AC/NRO NC which
  is made up of members elected by the RIR communities. The ASO AC/NRO NC process for
  making policy is the global policy process which I have explained to you before and for which
  the first step is to pass substantially identical policy in all 5 RIR policy processes as a proposed
  global policy.

  If the letter asking the ICANN board to decide was written to an entity without decisionmaking capability, then you don't have to worry about them making a decision, I guess.
  Sorry, meant to say IANA preceded the RIRs.




    Here is a document I found which proposes that ICANN adopts a set of requirements for those who wish to provide private registry services:
    http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/statement-ip-address-registrar-accreditation-policy-31mar11-en.pdf


  Given that this is shown as "correspondence" and not attributed to a source but also does not
  contain any information about it having been adopted, to the best of my knowledge, this is
  just a suggestion from some random source which has not necessarily received any
  community support for implementation.

  I never said it was adopted, I figured the source would be in the document, which I found on the icann.org site. But it spells out the kinds of requirements a new registry would be required to meet.



    I just skimmed it, but if the community decided that Benson's proposals suffered only from a lack of oversight, and required action at a global level, then perhaps they will add their voice to the support which I offered.

  Perhaps, but, you would still need a global policy proposal to voice support for.

  Unless ICANN board actually does make the decision they are being asked to make. The link above is  policy proposal on the ICANN correspondence page, and it is referenced in this letter:
  http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/holtzman-to-olive-02mar11-en.pdf providing reasons for requesting the decision at the ICANN board level. Based on the appeal to the authority of the DoC contract, I expect there could be a further appeal to the DoC or NTIA level if the ICANN board decides not to make a decision. It is interesting that ICANN requested information from ARIN instead of summarily dismissing the request as coming outside of policy. ARIN's reply to ICANN is on the same site.


  If the action happens at this level as a result of an informed decisionmaking process at ICANN, then I am happy because it will expedite the appearance of competing registries.

  I'm not sure I can parse what you are saying here in the context of the current way
  decisions are made by either ICANN (with the limitations that exist on their
  decision making ability) or the RIR level.

  If the ICANN board decides the issue than I am happy because I think competing registries will be allowed, and because I think ICANN is a higher level than ARIN and can mandate that ARIN share bulk whois data with competing registries.


    And why do I want competing registries? Is it because ARIN charges too much, or their website is hard to navigate?
    Is it because I wish to take my business elsewhere as a statement against ARIN staff? Is it their response time?
    Is it because I am a buyer who requires more than officer attestation for determining the right to sell addresses?
    Is it because I am a buyer who does not wish to sign an LRSA or RSA?
    Is it because I choose a 5 year planning horizon?
    Do I want to transfer out of region?

    No, none of those reasons, although are all, in my mind, potentially valid reasons for somebody to change registries.
    It is because I think a competing registrar would naturally reduce barriers to transfers.

  It is, perhaps, exactly this reduction of barriers that leads me to believe that competing registries
  would be a bad idea. I believe that the barriers that exist in the transfer process today were
  considered by the community and have the support of the vast majority of community members.
  I believe they were placed there for good reason and represent appropriate safeguards in the
  proper stewardship of number resources.

  Proper stewardship is to make policy that will increase the supply of addresses and bring down their price, while increasing whois reliability and removing the biggest distinction between legacy and non-legacy addresses.


    And that is my underlying goal. In fact, ARIN could probably pull the rug out from under a private registry by beating them to the punch and removing restrictions for all transfers.

  Q.E.D... "If ARIN merely abandons its stewardship role, we wouldn't need other registries to
  do that instead." In my opinion, stewardship is a good thing that should not be abandoned.

  Are you accusing the APNIC community of abandoning stewardship, and if they did, why do you think they did that? Is the region largely peopled by IPv4 profiteers?



    (I think needs analysis should be done on free-pool allocations, though. I hope that goes without saying.)

  I fail to see a reason that needs analysis should not be done on transfer recipients. Nothing
  you have said so far makes the case for that. If you could get the community to come to
  consensus that needs basis should be abandoned, a simple ARIN policy proposal could
  cause ARIN to do so. I believe that the community consensus is against such an abandonment
  of stewardship and so development of competing registries to override that community
  judgment strikes me as inappropriate at best.

  I think I have made my case to the community that maintaining a needs requirement in a post-exhaust world is not a requirement of stewardship.
  I suppose the discussion part has ended its productive phase and that it is time for a proposal so the community's voice can be heard one way or the other.
  I will try to get a proposal knocked together. I looked at the template last night.
  Owen, is it better to provide three examples of proposals with slightly different language, or one more general one that can be modified through discussion?
  As in, should I make separate proposals to remove needs justification from legacy transfers only, and one for non-legacy, and one for both?

  Regards,
  Mike


    As for the talk about the perils or benefits of free markets, I will leave that aside in the belief that the readers have internalized our different perspectives.



  Likely true.


  Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110504/4a5051c1/attachment.htm>