<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi, John.<div><div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for helping me explore this question. If a global policy is needed, then I'll consider proposing one. But please indulge me a bit further, as I don't yet understand the need.</div><div><br></div><div><div>On Feb 25, 2011, at 3:37 AM, John Curran wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">In the context of proposal 136, as well as 133 and 134, you have suggested the need for a global policy discussion. My question is a result of your suggestion. Why specifically, in the context of global policy, is this not a matter for ARIN to decide? As I outlined in my quoted text above, I don't think ICP-2 limits ARIN's ability to decide this issue. But this is an honest question - if I'm overlooking something I'd like to know.<br></blockquote><br>My apologies for being unclear - In the policy proposal, you reference<br>hypothetical "replacement directory services". If these entities are <br>allowed under ARIN's local policy framework, then ICP-2 states that <br>ARIN's policies would need to apply in a fair and equitable manner<br>these entities just as they apply to ISP's in the region. Does that<br>actually meet your requirements? I expected otherwise from the policy <br>background statement.<br></div></blockquote><br></div><div>and</div><div><br></div><div><div>On Feb 25, 2011, at 4:00 AM, John Curran wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>A review of the NRO history reveals only a non-binding letter of affirmation with the NRO, but let's just assume that is adequate. In the affirmation letter, ICANN delegates responsibility for allocating addresses and "facilitating" development of policies. I do not see the delegation of other powers such as "reclamation" authority etc. Maybe I'm missing something?</div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Perhaps the first sentence?</div><div><br></div><div>"The NRO shall fulfill the role, responsibilities and functions of the ASO as defined </div><div>within the ICANN Bylaws." <<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm</a>></div><div><br></div><div>Per the ICANN Bylaws, this includes advising the Board "with respect to policy issues </div><div>relating to the operation, assignment, and management of Internet addresses." </div><div>The Board accepted ICP-2 < <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/icp/icp-2.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/icp/icp-2.htm</a>> as a statement </div><div>of policy, with the NRO fulfilling ICANN's duties of coordination of number resources </div><div>and in particular the stable and secure operation of the Internet's number identifier </div><div>systems.</div></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div><div>I see how the ICANN Bylaws and NRO MOU establish a role for the RIRs in policy development. And I see that there are guidelines for recognizing RIRs in the ICANN-adopted ICP-2 policy.</div><div><br></div><div>What I don't see is anything limiting the formation of a registry/registrar system, post-allocation services, etc, especially if done within the scope of a single region. While prop 136 doesn't directly call for the formation of a registrar system or post-allocation services, I admit that it does imply the opportunity. However, there is no requirement that "replacement directory services" are provided by a third party - I imagine that the address holder can provide a directory service for themselves.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Another thing I don't see is any requirement that a RIR enforce policy on post-allocation behaviors. As far as I can tell, this is the realm of RIR-specific "management" policy. In as much as the RIR is allowed to create policy regulating address resources in their region, it should likewise be able to deregulate those resources.</div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps I'm overlooking or misunderstanding something, but I still fail to see the requirement for a global policy associated with prop 136.</div></div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>-Benson</div><div><br></div></body></html>