<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Owen,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The salient point was that the document was <A
style="MARGIN: 0px; COLOR: rgb(0,0,255)"
href="http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-04jun01.htm#01.67"><FONT
size=3>accepted by the ICANN Board of Directors</FONT></A>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>My reading of this is that while the ASO
recommended a policy, it was decided by ICANN.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>You may call that a formality, but to me the
relevant positions of authority are clear.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I grant that it would appear better to the world
community if the decision were made with expressed community
support.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Perhaps, as I suggested earlier, both IETF and DoC
should be involved in the decision.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>But to ask the RIRs whether to dilute their
position by allowing private competing registries is a question asked and
answered.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Mike</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=owen@delong.com href="mailto:owen@delong.com">Owen DeLong</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=mike@nationwideinc.com
href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com">Mike Burns</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=jcurran@arin.net
href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">John Curran</A> ; <A title=arin-ppml@arin.net
href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, May 02, 2011 3:13 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [arin-ppml] Accusation of
fundamental conflict of interest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to
ICANN</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Apr 30, 2011, at 1:48 PM, Mike Burns wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">What higher organizational
level?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">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.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Owen<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I think you misconstrue the
relationship and have the tail wagging the dog.<BR>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.<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Sort
of...</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>"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. "<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Look again at
the header for the ICP-2 Document (emphasis mine):</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-SIZE: small"
class=Apple-style-span>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0.75em 0px; FONT-SIZE: small">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.</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0.75em 0px; FONT-SIZE: small"><B
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">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</B>
was <A style="MARGIN: 0px; COLOR: rgb(0,0,255)"
href="http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-04jun01.htm#01.67">accepted
by the ICANN Board of Directors</A> 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.</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0.75em 0px; FONT-SIZE: small">Comments on this document
are welcome and should be directed to <A
style="MARGIN: 0px; COLOR: rgb(0,0,255)"
href="mailto:comments@icann.org">comments@icann.org</A>.</DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0.75em 0px; FONT-SIZE: small"></P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The number resource administration portion of IANA is governed entirely
by the RIRs and that is, as I said,</DIV>
<DIV>the proper bottom-up way things should be managed.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>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?<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, what part of IANA would you have
decide? IMHO, this would have to rest in the NRO.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>See also:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><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>The NRO (Number Resource Organization) which is a forum of the 5 RIRs is
given the role of the ASO</DIV>
<DIV>as defined in the ICANN charter. The ASO (Address Supporting
Organization) is essentially fully autonomous</DIV>
<DIV>with ICANN under the above referenced document.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>There is no authority at ICANN to override the RIRs collective
decisions.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>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.<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<DIV>I disagree with your characterization of the RIRs as a fox. In reality,
the above referenced documents</DIV>
<DIV>make it quite clear that the process is governed by the bottom-up
community-consenus policy process.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>You can make changes to any global policy and such changes could override
the MOU and/or the</DIV>
<DIV>ICP-2 document. However, to make those changes, you must acquire
community consensus for them</DIV>
<DIV>in each of the 5 RIRs as a global policy proposal.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Much like getting an amendment to the US constitution requires
ratification by 2/3rds of the state</DIV>
<DIV>legislatures.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>To me, this seems right and good.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Owen</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>