<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Hi, John.</div><br><div><div>On Feb 14, 2011, at 9:40 PM, John Curran wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div> When ARIN was created, on its first day of operation, it had only <br> "legacy allocations".</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">...<br></font> After the IANA function was contracted to ICANN by the US Dept of <br> Commerce (the current contracting agency for these tasks), the RIRs <br> and ICANN entered into an agreement whereby the RIRs would serve the<br> function of of ICANN's Address Supporting Organization, responsible <br> for "global number resource policy development". </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks for this feedback. I'm happy to report that my understanding of history is in-line with the events you have described.</div><div><br></div><div>However, I would be interested in your comments on the current relationship between ARIN and IANA/ICANN. Specifically, I gather that the NRO has proposed a framework that was only partially acknowledged by IANA, and that IANA has asked for a legal contract that has never materialized. Are there any actual commitments in-force? Does anything guarantee that ARIN will continue to have a role in IANA policy creation, or even recognition by IANA?</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>In your proposal,<br> you might consider some way to reconcile acknowledging ICANN/IANA's<br> policy authority while not acknowledging the NRO/RIR policy authority <br> without contradicting the RIRs serving under agreement as ICANN's <br> policy body for Internet number resources. I believe that would <br> significantly strengthen the policy proposal if that is your goal.<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>If I understand the root of your comment, it is that: IANA has delegated responsibility* for IP number policy to the NRO. Effectively this creates a circular dependency in which the IANA is comprised of the RIRs, and the RIRs are subject to IANA, etc.</div><div><br></div><div>Even if that is the case, I'm not sure I see how proposal 133 needs to be reconciled. IANA still has some authority as an institution, even if the IANA policy is formulated by the RIRs (via NRO/ASO), and the policy proposal recognizes that authority in determining legitimate address holders etc. Granted, we might compare the present situation to one asking themselves for permission... But I don't understand how this leads to your suggestion. Do I misunderstand, and/or can you clarify?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks, and Cheers,</div><div>-Benson</div><div><br></div><div>* - Who can blame ICANN for delegating IANA responsibility, when they're so busy creating TLDs? How can they possibly have time for IANA? But that is a different topic, I suppose...</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>