From info at arin.net  Mon Oct 13 14:50:43 2014
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:50:43 -0400
Subject: [Iana-transition] Welcome to the IANA Transition Mailing List
Message-ID: <543C1F03.6080303@arin.net>

As a part of the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) system, the ARIN
community has been called to contribute to the ongoing global
multistakeholder discussion on the IANA Stewardship Transition. The
feedback from the ARIN community will be part of the contribution
provided by the Number Resource Organization (NRO) to the IANA
Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) in response to their
recent ?Request for Proposals (RFP) for ?IANA? Stewardship Transition
Proposal?. ???? https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en???

We have also created this public mailing list to facilitate open
community discussion in the region regarding the IANA Stewardship
Transition planning process and look forward to your feedback.

We would also like your opinion on number of specific points detailed in
a short survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IANA_stewardship

This survey will be open from 13 October to 20 October 2014, and the
results will be made available to the community on 24 October 2014.

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



From jschiller at google.com  Wed Oct 15 21:42:28 2014
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:42:28 -0400
Subject: [Iana-transition] ICG RFP sections 0, I, and II
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2WaUEPmqifKZM7TBtV=2_ftAPXx92FvM3sqkmCjwQgGRA@mail.gmail.com>

I wanted to start some discussion while we wait for the survey results.  I
think it is worth posting the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination
Group (ICG)
RFP in case not everyone is aware of it.

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-03sep14-en.pdf

I think it is reasonable to conclude that our community should only be
responding to concerns in the "Numbers" space, and any other concerns
should be brought to the attention of the appropriate community (IETF for
protocols and ports or ICANN for names and DNS) for consideration.

I also think it is reasonable to conclude that sections I. "Description of
Community's Use of IANA Functions" and II. "Existing, Pre-Transition
Arrangements" are
simply reporting facts as they currently are.  Assuming that is the case I
would recommend ARIN staff (or the NRO if other regions also support this
conclusion) provide preliminary answers to these sections, with our
community validating the responses.

I would like to ask this community if they agree with this assessment, or
if there are any objections to referring sections I and II out to staff,
and closing out section 0. by checking the "Numbers" box.

Then we can focus on the remaining sections which will need community
discussion.

___Jason
-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141015/c34193f2/attachment.html>

From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Wed Oct 15 22:21:32 2014
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 02:21:32 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] ICG RFP sections 0, I, and II
In-Reply-To: <CAC4yj2WaUEPmqifKZM7TBtV=2_ftAPXx92FvM3sqkmCjwQgGRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC4yj2WaUEPmqifKZM7TBtV=2_ftAPXx92FvM3sqkmCjwQgGRA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f125b54cfdc349c5adbb0ce1552755b6@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

I agree with this approach and the details you laid out, Jason.  Full
Support

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing
________________________________
From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 6:42:28 PM
To: Iana-transition at arin.net
Subject: [Iana-transition] ICG RFP sections 0, I, and II

I wanted to start some discussion while we wait for the survey results.  I think it is worth posting the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) RFP in case not everyone is aware of it.

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-03sep14-en.pdf

I think it is reasonable to conclude that our community should only be responding to concerns in the "Numbers" space, and any other concerns should be brought to the attention of the appropriate community (IETF for protocols and ports or ICANN for names and DNS) for consideration.

I also think it is reasonable to conclude that sections I. "Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions" and II. "Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements" are simply reporting facts as they currently are.  Assuming that is the case I would recommend ARIN staff (or the NRO if other regions also support this conclusion) provide preliminary answers to these sections, with our community validating the responses.

I would like to ask this community if they agree with this assessment, or if there are any objections to referring sections I and II out to staff, and closing out section 0. by checking the "Numbers" box.

Then we can focus on the remaining sections which will need community discussion.

___Jason
--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141016/8c5178f8/attachment.html>

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct 16 00:15:57 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 04:15:57 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] ICG RFP sections 0, I, and II
In-Reply-To: <CAC4yj2WaUEPmqifKZM7TBtV=2_ftAPXx92FvM3sqkmCjwQgGRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC4yj2WaUEPmqifKZM7TBtV=2_ftAPXx92FvM3sqkmCjwQgGRA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B92A0EF6-E72A-42CA-8F43-82111395F2D8@corp.arin.net>

Jason -

    Excellent post and thank you for starting the discussion.  I am available
    to support efforts as needed, and will post the survey results once it has
    been completed.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

On Oct 15, 2014, at 6:42 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>> wrote:

I wanted to start some discussion while we wait for the survey results.  I think it is worth posting the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) RFP in case not everyone is aware of it.

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-03sep14-en.pdf

I think it is reasonable to conclude that our community should only be responding to concerns in the "Numbers" space, and any other concerns should be brought to the attention of the appropriate community (IETF for protocols and ports or ICANN for names and DNS) for consideration.

I also think it is reasonable to conclude that sections I. "Description of Community?s Use of IANA Functions" and II. "Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements" are simply reporting facts as they currently are.  Assuming that is the case I would recommend ARIN staff (or the NRO if other regions also support this conclusion) provide preliminary answers to these sections, with our community validating the responses.

I would like to ask this community if they agree with this assessment, or if there are any objections to referring sections I and II out to staff, and closing out section 0. by checking the "Numbers" box.

Then we can focus on the remaining sections which will need community discussion.

___Jason
--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006

_______________________________________________
Iana-transition mailing list
Iana-transition at arin.net<mailto:Iana-transition at arin.net>
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141016/a6bd0a27/attachment.html>

From rhill at hill-a.ch  Thu Oct 16 12:30:43 2014
From: rhill at hill-a.ch (Richard Hill)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:30:43 +0200
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
Message-ID: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNGEFOCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>

As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the following things with
respect to IP addresses:

1. Approves the creation of new RIRs
2. Ratifies the policies approved by the RIRs

And, through the IANA function, it does the following:

3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs
4. Publishes those allocations on its web site

One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO, which would
in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those functions.  Since
the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that the members
of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.

Best,
Richard



From rhill at hill-a.ch  Thu Oct 16 12:29:04 2014
From: rhill at hill-a.ch (Richard Hill)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:29:04 +0200
Subject: [Iana-transition] Key elements of the transition of IANA stewardship
Message-ID: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNOEFNCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>

NOTE: this message has been cross-posted individually to the RIR mailing
lists dealing with this issue.

Here are some things that appear to me to be key elements for the transition
of the IANA stewardship.

At present, the "RIRs are an interested and affected party of the IANA
contract because IANA holds ultimate responsibility for allocated and
unallocated IPv4, IPv6 and Autonomous System Number address spaces. IANA
delegates IP and ASN address blocks to the RIRs on a needs-based approach
according to global policies agreed by all the Regional Internet Registries
(RIRs). The ?global policy development process? is described in the ICANN
Address Supporting Organization (ASO) memorandum of understanding. ICANN and
the Number Resource Organization (NRO) signed this MoU in 2004. The NRO is
an unincorporated organization created in 2003 as a coordination mechanism
for the RIRs. The NRO fulfills the role, responsibilities and functions of
the ASO as defined within the ICANN Bylaws." (This is a citation from the
document at:

 https://blog.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NRO-RELATIONSHIP-IANA.pdf
 )

The Mou between ICANN and the NRO is at:

 https://aso.icann.org/about-the-aso/aso-memorandum-of-understanding/

That MoU specifies how ICANN's ASO is constituted and provides that "Under
this agreement the ICANN Board will ratify proposed global policies in
accordance with the Global Policy Development Process, using review
procedures as determined by ICANN."

Thus, the ICANN Board has ultimate responsibility for IP address policies.
This is consistent with the ICANN Bylaws.

Up to now, under the IANA functions contract with the NTIA, ICANN was
clearly bound to defer to the RIRs for what concerns IP address policies.

If there is no contract between ICANN and some external entity, then ICANN
would have unrestricted ultimate authority over IP addresses.  That is, the
ICANN Board could, if it considered it appropriate, override RIR policies.

This puts too much power in the ICANN Board which, under ICANN's current
structure, is not accountable to any external entity.

It would appear desirable that the IANA functions should be contracted for
by the
served communities, that is, by the NRO/RIRs for what concerns IP addresses.

And indeed the draft proposal presented by APNIC on 8 September 2014
envisages a Service Level Agreement between ICANN and NRO and also a
non-binding Affirmation of Committments between ICANN and NRO.  These
proposals are found in the slide show contained in the web page at:

  http://blog.apnic.net/2014/09/08/iana-session-apnic-38-a-discussion-propos
al/

But a non-binding Affirmation of Committments, coupled with a Service Level
Agreement, are not the equivalent of a contract for the IANA functions.

Thus, it would appear more appropriate to adopt the same approach that has
been adopted by the IETF regarding protocol parameters, namely a Memorandum
of Understanding (which appears to be a contract) between the NRO and ICANN
for the IP addresses.  The Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the
IETF is at:

  https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/ietf-icann-mou-2000-03-01-e
n

and

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860

That text could easily be modified to refer to NRO and IP addresses instead
of IETF and protocol parameters.

However, item 4 of the text should be modified so that it reads as follows:

"4. Agreed technical work items.  ICANN agrees, notwithstanding any
provisions in its Bylaws or other corporate documents that might be
construed differently, that during the term of this MOU it shall cause IANA
to comply ..."

In addition, consideration should be given to adding a choice of law clause
and a dispute resolution clause, presumably referring to arbitration rather
than to national courts.

There was extensive discussion (but no agreement) on the IANA Transition
mailing list regarding whether or not the fact that a US court could, in
theory, order ICANN/IANA to do something contrary to agreed community
policies is an issue and, if so, whether anything should be proposed to deal
with that issue, such as proposing that the entity that performs the IANA
function should have immunity of jurisdiction, or that the entity should
have redundant sites in more than one jurisdiction.

If there is support for dealing with that issue, then some text could be
added.

Finally, and in addition to the above, article I.1 of the ICANN Bylaws
should be modified to make it clear that it is the NRO that has the overall
responsibility for the coordination and allocation and assignment of IP
addresses.  That change is needed because, at present, article I.1 of the
ICANN Bylaws implies that ICANN has the overall responsibility for the
coordination and allocation and assignment of IP addresses.

Best,
Richard



From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct 16 13:06:17 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:06:17 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNGEFOCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNGEFOCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
Message-ID: <B8D01560-C580-46B6-B840-0030B5192F5C@corp.arin.net>


On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

> As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the following things with
> respect to IP addresses:
> 
> 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs
> 2. Ratifies the policies approved by the RIRs
> 
> And, through the IANA function, it does the following:
> 
> 3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs
> 4. Publishes those allocations on its web site
> 
> One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO, which would
> in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those functions.  Since
> the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that the members
> of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.

Richard -

This is certainly possible, but it is worth noting that the NRO is a 
rather lightweight coordination function among the RIRs, allowing the 
RIRs to coordinate on matters such as "whether we'll have an joint RIR 
trade show booth at a given international conference", "can we work on 
one informational brochure on IPv4 runout/IPv6 rather than having five",
"can we have a single joint number resource statistics report", etc.  

In these cases, each RIR is fulfilling each existing mission and operating
plans, only coordinating with other RIRs to do so in a more efficient and
consistent manner.  Ultimately, each RIR acts under its own authority on
matters which are primarily outreach and operational in nature.

Expanding the NRO to take on the functions listed could be done, but would
represent a fairly substantial change in the level of responsibility, and
may need to be accompanied by both organizational changes (e.g. actually
incorporating the NRO) and accountability changes (e.g. more than simply 
to the RIR executive directors, as it is at present.)

If this approach were to be promoted, it would be good to have ample 
discussion on this list first, including the aspects noted above.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From andrew.dul at quark.net  Thu Oct 16 13:10:48 2014
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:10:48 -0700
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNGEFOCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNGEFOCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
Message-ID: <543FFC18.80000@quark.net>

I don't really like having the same conversation in another list, but
anyway, I'd hoped we would have learned from the other discussion in
other regions.

On 10/16/2014 9:30 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
> As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the following things with
> respect to IP addresses:
>
> 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs
Approves is a very strong.  ICP-2 defines a set of criteria, but the
details of "approval" aren't included IMO.
> 2. Ratifies the policies approved by the RIRs
Wrong, ICANN doesn't ratify RIR polcies.  ICANN only deals with global
number resource policies that give the IANA instructions.

Andrew


From jschiller at google.com  Thu Oct 16 13:25:46 2014
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:25:46 -0400
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <B8D01560-C580-46B6-B840-0030B5192F5C@corp.arin.net>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNGEFOCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<B8D01560-C580-46B6-B840-0030B5192F5C@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2UnfQMeY-utY3pzD2T7yW0EvX4yrY_NRSi3Mxqu48ObqQ@mail.gmail.com>

I think it is worth pointing out that the ICG RFP section III asks about
what current pre-transition oversight and accountability mechanism will
change in the post transition.

To the extent that these things do not change, and continue to be rooted in
well established structures with a long standing stable history and clear
delegation of authority, our job is easier.

 ___Jason

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:06 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>
> On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
> > As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the following things
> with
> > respect to IP addresses:
> >
> > 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs
> > 2. Ratifies the policies approved by the RIRs
> >
> > And, through the IANA function, it does the following:
> >
> > 3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs
> > 4. Publishes those allocations on its web site
> >
> > One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO, which
> would
> > in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those functions.  Since
> > the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that the
> members
> > of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.
>
> Richard -
>
> This is certainly possible, but it is worth noting that the NRO is a
> rather lightweight coordination function among the RIRs, allowing the
> RIRs to coordinate on matters such as "whether we'll have an joint RIR
> trade show booth at a given international conference", "can we work on
> one informational brochure on IPv4 runout/IPv6 rather than having five",
> "can we have a single joint number resource statistics report", etc.
>
> In these cases, each RIR is fulfilling each existing mission and operating
> plans, only coordinating with other RIRs to do so in a more efficient and
> consistent manner.  Ultimately, each RIR acts under its own authority on
> matters which are primarily outreach and operational in nature.
>
> Expanding the NRO to take on the functions listed could be done, but would
> represent a fairly substantial change in the level of responsibility, and
> may need to be accompanied by both organizational changes (e.g. actually
> incorporating the NRO) and accountability changes (e.g. more than simply
> to the RIR executive directors, as it is at present.)
>
> If this approach were to be promoted, it would be good to have ample
> discussion on this list first, including the aspects noted above.
>
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141016/2ba38e68/attachment.html>

From rhill at hill-a.ch  Thu Oct 16 13:27:44 2014
From: rhill at hill-a.ch (Richard Hill)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:27:44 +0200
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <B8D01560-C580-46B6-B840-0030B5192F5C@corp.arin.net>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNGEFOCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<B8D01560-C580-46B6-B840-0030B5192F5C@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <1d59d319-9a86-48f4-9ca0-bd7a2f5c55de@email.android.com>

Dear John

I agree with your comments below. 

Best Richard

On October 16, 2014 7:06:17 PM CEST, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>
>On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
>> As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the following
>things with
>> respect to IP addresses:
>> 
>> 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs
>> 2. Ratifies the policies approved by the RIRs
>> 
>> And, through the IANA function, it does the following:
>> 
>> 3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs
>> 4. Publishes those allocations on its web site
>> 
>> One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO, which
>would
>> in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those functions. 
>Since
>> the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that the
>members
>> of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.
>
>Richard -
>
>This is certainly possible, but it is worth noting that the NRO is a 
>rather lightweight coordination function among the RIRs, allowing the 
>RIRs to coordinate on matters such as "whether we'll have an joint RIR 
>trade show booth at a given international conference", "can we work on 
>one informational brochure on IPv4 runout/IPv6 rather than having
>five",
>"can we have a single joint number resource statistics report", etc.  
>
>In these cases, each RIR is fulfilling each existing mission and
>operating
>plans, only coordinating with other RIRs to do so in a more efficient
>and
>consistent manner.  Ultimately, each RIR acts under its own authority
>on
>matters which are primarily outreach and operational in nature.
>
>Expanding the NRO to take on the functions listed could be done, but
>would
>represent a fairly substantial change in the level of responsibility,
>and
>may need to be accompanied by both organizational changes (e.g.
>actually
>incorporating the NRO) and accountability changes (e.g. more than
>simply 
>to the RIR executive directors, as it is at present.)
>
>If this approach were to be promoted, it would be good to have ample 
>discussion on this list first, including the aspects noted above.
>
>/John
>
>John Curran
>President and CEO
>ARIN

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141016/d477b2c3/attachment.html>

From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Thu Oct 16 13:36:13 2014
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:36:13 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <B8D01560-C580-46B6-B840-0030B5192F5C@corp.arin.net>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNGEFOCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>,
	<B8D01560-C580-46B6-B840-0030B5192F5C@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <86dc41fa870648c28489f5031f44abc1@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

Regardless of any work that would need to be done, I support the idea of transitioning the traditional IANA addressing functions to the NRO. The IANA was run for decades as one person. The NRO can hire Leo Vegoda or someone else to perform that role. Funding can come directly from the NRO participants with no fee increase - just drop the significant money being paid to ICANN today.

Bottom line for me: ICANN is not the appropriate vehicle for the IANA function. We engineers need to take back control of the engineering functions of IANA, wresting it away from professional do-nothings and lawyers (save our own lawyers, who of course, we love).

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing

________________________________________
From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:06:17 AM
To: rhill at hill-a.ch
Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?

On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

> As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the following things with
> respect to IP addresses:
>
> 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs
> 2. Ratifies the policies approved by the RIRs
>
> And, through the IANA function, it does the following:
>
> 3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs
> 4. Publishes those allocations on its web site
>
> One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO, which would
> in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those functions.  Since
> the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that the members
> of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.

Richard -

This is certainly possible, but it is worth noting that the NRO is a
rather lightweight coordination function among the RIRs, allowing the
RIRs to coordinate on matters such as "whether we'll have an joint RIR
trade show booth at a given international conference", "can we work on
one informational brochure on IPv4 runout/IPv6 rather than having five",
"can we have a single joint number resource statistics report", etc.

In these cases, each RIR is fulfilling each existing mission and operating
plans, only coordinating with other RIRs to do so in a more efficient and
consistent manner.  Ultimately, each RIR acts under its own authority on
matters which are primarily outreach and operational in nature.

Expanding the NRO to take on the functions listed could be done, but would
represent a fairly substantial change in the level of responsibility, and
may need to be accompanied by both organizational changes (e.g. actually
incorporating the NRO) and accountability changes (e.g. more than simply
to the RIR executive directors, as it is at present.)

If this approach were to be promoted, it would be good to have ample
discussion on this list first, including the aspects noted above.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


_______________________________________________
Iana-transition mailing list
Iana-transition at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition


From rhill at hill-a.ch  Thu Oct 16 14:35:03 2014
From: rhill at hill-a.ch (Richard Hill)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 20:35:03 +0200
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <86dc41fa870648c28489f5031f44abc1@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMEFPCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>

Unless I am mistaken, the RIRs are paying something like US $ 800'000 per
year to ICANN.

I imnagine that the NROs could provide the IANA function for considerably
less than that.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Huberman [mailto:David.Huberman at microsoft.com]
> Sent: jeudi, 16. octobre 2014 19:36
> To: John Curran; rhill at hill-a.ch
> Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>
>
> Regardless of any work that would need to be done, I support the
> idea of transitioning the traditional IANA addressing functions
> to the NRO. The IANA was run for decades as one person. The NRO
> can hire Leo Vegoda or someone else to perform that role. Funding
> can come directly from the NRO participants with no fee increase
> - just drop the significant money being paid to ICANN today.
>
> Bottom line for me: ICANN is not the appropriate vehicle for the
> IANA function. We engineers need to take back control of the
> engineering functions of IANA, wresting it away from professional
> do-nothings and lawyers (save our own lawyers, who of course, we love).
>
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>
> ________________________________________
> From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net
> <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of John Curran
> <jcurran at arin.net>
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:06:17 AM
> To: rhill at hill-a.ch
> Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>
> On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
> > As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the
> following things with
> > respect to IP addresses:
> >
> > 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs
> > 2. Ratifies the policies approved by the RIRs
> >
> > And, through the IANA function, it does the following:
> >
> > 3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs
> > 4. Publishes those allocations on its web site
> >
> > One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO,
> which would
> > in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those
> functions.  Since
> > the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that
> the members
> > of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.
>
> Richard -
>
> This is certainly possible, but it is worth noting that the NRO is a
> rather lightweight coordination function among the RIRs, allowing the
> RIRs to coordinate on matters such as "whether we'll have an joint RIR
> trade show booth at a given international conference", "can we work on
> one informational brochure on IPv4 runout/IPv6 rather than having five",
> "can we have a single joint number resource statistics report", etc.
>
> In these cases, each RIR is fulfilling each existing mission and operating
> plans, only coordinating with other RIRs to do so in a more efficient and
> consistent manner.  Ultimately, each RIR acts under its own authority on
> matters which are primarily outreach and operational in nature.
>
> Expanding the NRO to take on the functions listed could be done, but would
> represent a fairly substantial change in the level of responsibility, and
> may need to be accompanied by both organizational changes (e.g. actually
> incorporating the NRO) and accountability changes (e.g. more than simply
> to the RIR executive directors, as it is at present.)
>
> If this approach were to be promoted, it would be good to have ample
> discussion on this list first, including the aspects noted above.
>
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>
>



From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct 16 17:53:42 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 21:53:42 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR regional
 inputs into single ICG response
Message-ID: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>

Folks - 

The NRO has issued the following proposal for a process to finalise the transition proposal 
from the numbering community.

 <https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team-crisp-team>

The proposed CRISP team will include 3 members from each region (2 community members 
and 1 RIR staff per region.)

Discussion on this list of the NRO proposal is welcome.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From andrew.dul at quark.net  Thu Oct 16 18:24:19 2014
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:24:19 -0700
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <86dc41fa870648c28489f5031f44abc1@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNGEFOCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>,
	<B8D01560-C580-46B6-B840-0030B5192F5C@corp.arin.net>
	<86dc41fa870648c28489f5031f44abc1@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <54404593.8070603@quark.net>

Just for the sake of discussion...lets say we move the number resource
function currently done by IANA to the NRO. 

We then need to go down the road of asking questions like...

What changes are necessary in the NRO structure, if any?
Are there structural and accountability changes that are necessary at
the NRO & the RIRs?

While moving the function to the NRO sounds simple and lightweight, I do
think there are larger issues that need to be considered. 

The alternate way to look at this is what does ICANN (or a future ICANN)
provide the numbers community that the NRO does not?   Could the NRO (or
a future NRO) better provide what is needed by the RIRs and the numbers
community?

Andrew

On 10/16/2014 10:36 AM, David Huberman wrote:
> Regardless of any work that would need to be done, I support the idea of transitioning the traditional IANA addressing functions to the NRO. The IANA was run for decades as one person. The NRO can hire Leo Vegoda or someone else to perform that role. Funding can come directly from the NRO participants with no fee increase - just drop the significant money being paid to ICANN today.
>
> Bottom line for me: ICANN is not the appropriate vehicle for the IANA function. We engineers need to take back control of the engineering functions of IANA, wresting it away from professional do-nothings and lawyers (save our own lawyers, who of course, we love).
>
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>
> ________________________________________
> From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:06:17 AM
> To: rhill at hill-a.ch
> Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>
> On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
>> As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the following things with
>> respect to IP addresses:
>>
>> 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs
>> 2. Ratifies the policies approved by the RIRs
>>
>> And, through the IANA function, it does the following:
>>
>> 3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs
>> 4. Publishes those allocations on its web site
>>
>> One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO, which would
>> in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those functions.  Since
>> the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that the members
>> of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.
> Richard -
>
> This is certainly possible, but it is worth noting that the NRO is a
> rather lightweight coordination function among the RIRs, allowing the
> RIRs to coordinate on matters such as "whether we'll have an joint RIR
> trade show booth at a given international conference", "can we work on
> one informational brochure on IPv4 runout/IPv6 rather than having five",
> "can we have a single joint number resource statistics report", etc.
>
> In these cases, each RIR is fulfilling each existing mission and operating
> plans, only coordinating with other RIRs to do so in a more efficient and
> consistent manner.  Ultimately, each RIR acts under its own authority on
> matters which are primarily outreach and operational in nature.
>
> Expanding the NRO to take on the functions listed could be done, but would
> represent a fairly substantial change in the level of responsibility, and
> may need to be accompanied by both organizational changes (e.g. actually
> incorporating the NRO) and accountability changes (e.g. more than simply
> to the RIR executive directors, as it is at present.)
>
> If this approach were to be promoted, it would be good to have ample
> discussion on this list first, including the aspects noted above.
>
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition



From andrew.dul at quark.net  Thu Oct 16 18:24:54 2014
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:24:54 -0700
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMEFPCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMEFPCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
Message-ID: <544045B6.1030207@quark.net>

While $800k certainly isn't a small amount of money it, I'll postulate
that it also isn't a huge amount. 

ICANN does a lot of "stuff" a lot of which isn't related to numbers at
all, but it does act as a lightening rod for lots of global issues.  Its
possible that an independent NRO would also have to deal with some of
those issues.  In that light perhaps we are getting the value out of our
relationship with ICANN?  ICANN certainly isn't perfect, but the working
relationship between the numbers community and ICANN, while odd, has
been highly functional and focused on specific issues where global
coordination is necessary.

Andrew

On 10/16/2014 11:35 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
> Unless I am mistaken, the RIRs are paying something like US $ 800'000 per
> year to ICANN.
>
> I imnagine that the NROs could provide the IANA function for considerably
> less than that.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Huberman [mailto:David.Huberman at microsoft.com]
>> Sent: jeudi, 16. octobre 2014 19:36
>> To: John Curran; rhill at hill-a.ch
>> Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>>
>>
>> Regardless of any work that would need to be done, I support the
>> idea of transitioning the traditional IANA addressing functions
>> to the NRO. The IANA was run for decades as one person. The NRO
>> can hire Leo Vegoda or someone else to perform that role. Funding
>> can come directly from the NRO participants with no fee increase
>> - just drop the significant money being paid to ICANN today.
>>
>> Bottom line for me: ICANN is not the appropriate vehicle for the
>> IANA function. We engineers need to take back control of the
>> engineering functions of IANA, wresting it away from professional
>> do-nothings and lawyers (save our own lawyers, who of course, we love).
>>
>> David R Huberman
>> Microsoft Corporation
>> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net
>> <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of John Curran
>> <jcurran at arin.net>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:06:17 AM
>> To: rhill at hill-a.ch
>> Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>>
>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the
>> following things with
>>> respect to IP addresses:
>>>
>>> 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs
>>> 2. Ratifies the policies approved by the RIRs
>>>
>>> And, through the IANA function, it does the following:
>>>
>>> 3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs
>>> 4. Publishes those allocations on its web site
>>>
>>> One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO,
>> which would
>>> in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those
>> functions.  Since
>>> the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that
>> the members
>>> of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.
>> Richard -
>>
>> This is certainly possible, but it is worth noting that the NRO is a
>> rather lightweight coordination function among the RIRs, allowing the
>> RIRs to coordinate on matters such as "whether we'll have an joint RIR
>> trade show booth at a given international conference", "can we work on
>> one informational brochure on IPv4 runout/IPv6 rather than having five",
>> "can we have a single joint number resource statistics report", etc.
>>
>> In these cases, each RIR is fulfilling each existing mission and operating
>> plans, only coordinating with other RIRs to do so in a more efficient and
>> consistent manner.  Ultimately, each RIR acts under its own authority on
>> matters which are primarily outreach and operational in nature.
>>
>> Expanding the NRO to take on the functions listed could be done, but would
>> represent a fairly substantial change in the level of responsibility, and
>> may need to be accompanied by both organizational changes (e.g. actually
>> incorporating the NRO) and accountability changes (e.g. more than simply
>> to the RIR executive directors, as it is at present.)
>>
>> If this approach were to be promoted, it would be good to have ample
>> discussion on this list first, including the aspects noted above.
>>
>> /John
>>
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> ARIN
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iana-transition mailing list
>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition



From tbiehn at gmail.com  Thu Oct 16 19:00:24 2014
From: tbiehn at gmail.com (Travis Biehn)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:00:24 -0400
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAKtE3zexikPV2YCnfsBfNdGHc4xvr4o4zkNewdapYiD8SzYs8g@mail.gmail.com>

Hey John,

I only take exception with the lack of definition around what a
non-RIR-staff appointee is. Is this a true impartial 3rd party? A community
member? The NRO leaves it up to RIRs to delegate these individuals -
'colluding' RIR staff and non RIR staff are so permitted.

If a RIR is to agree to a 2/3rds majority vote, then potentials for
collusion should be minimized by more explicit terms for appointees to the
'CRISP Team.'

-Travis

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:53 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> Folks -
>
> The NRO has issued the following proposal for a process to finalise the
> transition proposal
> from the numbering community.
>
>  <
> https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team-crisp-team
> >
>
> The proposed CRISP team will include 3 members from each region (2
> community members
> and 1 RIR staff per region.)
>
> Discussion on this list of the NRO proposal is welcome.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>



-- 
Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> | LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn> | GitHub <http://github.com/tbiehn>
| TravisBiehn.com <http://www.travisbiehn.com> | Google Plus
<https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141016/f500715c/attachment.html>

From springer at inlandnet.com  Thu Oct 16 19:16:31 2014
From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1410161555560.38250@mail.inlandnet.com>

So, given that "Each Regional Internet Registry shall appoint their CRISP 
team members by a method of its own choosing.", how shall this be done 
here?

It would seem that the usual 'pick a nomcom, run the nomcom, hold an 
election' process might be a little cumbersome given the compressed time 
frame.

I don't see a time table for selecting the CRISP members either. ASAP 
seems like it would be good. :) Does the NRO have a rough idea of when it 
would be good to have the first telecon by?

John Springer

On Thu, 16 Oct 2014, John Curran wrote:

> Folks -
>
> The NRO has issued the following proposal for a process to finalise the transition proposal
> from the numbering community.
>
> <https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team-crisp-team>
>
> The proposed CRISP team will include 3 members from each region (2 community members
> and 1 RIR staff per region.)
>
> Discussion on this list of the NRO proposal is welcome.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>
>


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct 16 19:21:47 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 23:21:47 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <CAKtE3zexikPV2YCnfsBfNdGHc4xvr4o4zkNewdapYiD8SzYs8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<CAKtE3zexikPV2YCnfsBfNdGHc4xvr4o4zkNewdapYiD8SzYs8g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F865D955-8845-44F4-A29B-F1D4DA946EBE@arin.net>

On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:00 PM, Travis Biehn <tbiehn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey John,
> 
> I only take exception with the lack of definition around what a non-RIR-staff appointee is. Is this a true impartial 3rd party? A community member? The NRO leaves it up to RIRs to delegate these individuals - 'colluding' RIR staff and non RIR staff are so permitted. 

Excellent point.  In the ARIN region, we recognize "staff" to be those employed by ARIN 
(including myself), otherwise you are a community members.  There are a small number 
of cases where we distinguish between ARIN's elected Board of Trustees and others in 
the community, for example, our policy development  process notes that proposals may 
come from "anyone in the global Internet community _except_ for members of the ARIN 
Board of Trustees or the ARIN staff. 

> If a RIR is to agree to a 2/3rds majority vote, then potentials for collusion should be minimized by more explicit terms for appointees to the 'CRISP Team.'

Is there a particular suggestion that you would propose?

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct 16 19:26:53 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 23:26:53 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1410161555560.38250@mail.inlandnet.com>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1410161555560.38250@mail.inlandnet.com>
Message-ID: <1D8B6DBA-FFA7-43D1-9F3B-FCFC48C82FFC@arin.net>

On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:16 PM, John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com> wrote:

> So, given that "Each Regional Internet Registry shall appoint their CRISP team members by a method of its own choosing.", how shall this be done here?
> 
> It would seem that the usual 'pick a nomcom, run the nomcom, hold an election' process might be a little cumbersome given the compressed time frame.

I believe that most RIRs are having those elected/selected by the community
already (e.g. their working group chairs, or ASO AC representatives) to serve
in that capacity, as this is supposed to be an expedited process which is based
to some extend on the present global policy development process (which would 
have the ASO AC representatives serving.)

> I don't see a time table for selecting the CRISP members either. ASAP seems like it would be good. :)

Indeed.  Definitely within the next few weeks, as these folks potentially need 
to be working with whatever inputs are available starting in November...

> Does the NRO have a rough idea of when it would be good to have the first telecon by?

Not to my knowledge.
/John



From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com  Thu Oct 16 19:30:50 2014
From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 23:30:50 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <F865D955-8845-44F4-A29B-F1D4DA946EBE@arin.net>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<CAKtE3zexikPV2YCnfsBfNdGHc4xvr4o4zkNewdapYiD8SzYs8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<F865D955-8845-44F4-A29B-F1D4DA946EBE@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMfXtQx6F6ftMfQAb_n1+cT-4EbVujViwo+xK061srdeguk4Nw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:21 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
...
> Is there a particular suggestion that you would propose?

Let the AC do an internal nomination/election.  They
are our reps.


From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Thu Oct 16 19:34:22 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:34:22 -0700
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMEFPCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
References: <86dc41fa870648c28489f5031f44abc1@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMEFPCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6gxf_97O_N1tba2S1Ev6K2AifD6NQ89q1r8VqH32mKqXg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

> Unless I am mistaken, the RIRs are paying something like US $ 800'000 per
> year to ICANN.
>
> I imnagine that the NROs could provide the IANA function for considerably
> less than that.
>

I think there is a reason why its called Internet cooperation for assigned
names and numbers (ICANN) ;)

I personally have no problem with who keeps allocation records, what is
however important for me is making sure that the RIR community remains the
ultimate source of allocation administration. At the moment the RIRs
are[1], making sure such status will not get repelled/daunted would be the
ultimate goal.

Cheers!
1. Although not in its entirety, considering the global policy development
approval process.


> Best,
> Richard
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Huberman [mailto:David.Huberman at microsoft.com]
> > Sent: jeudi, 16. octobre 2014 19:36
> > To: John Curran; rhill at hill-a.ch
> > Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
> >
> >
> > Regardless of any work that would need to be done, I support the
> > idea of transitioning the traditional IANA addressing functions
> > to the NRO. The IANA was run for decades as one person. The NRO
> > can hire Leo Vegoda or someone else to perform that role. Funding
> > can come directly from the NRO participants with no fee increase
> > - just drop the significant money being paid to ICANN today.
> >
> > Bottom line for me: ICANN is not the appropriate vehicle for the
> > IANA function. We engineers need to take back control of the
> > engineering functions of IANA, wresting it away from professional
> > do-nothings and lawyers (save our own lawyers, who of course, we love).
> >
> > David R Huberman
> > Microsoft Corporation
> > Principal, Global IP Addressing
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net
> > <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of John Curran
> > <jcurran at arin.net>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:06:17 AM
> > To: rhill at hill-a.ch
> > Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
> >
> > On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
> >
> > > As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the
> > following things with
> > > respect to IP addresses:
> > >
> > > 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs
> > > 2. Ratifies the policies approved by the RIRs
> > >
> > > And, through the IANA function, it does the following:
> > >
> > > 3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs
> > > 4. Publishes those allocations on its web site
> > >
> > > One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO,
> > which would
> > > in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those
> > functions.  Since
> > > the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that
> > the members
> > > of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.
> >
> > Richard -
> >
> > This is certainly possible, but it is worth noting that the NRO is a
> > rather lightweight coordination function among the RIRs, allowing the
> > RIRs to coordinate on matters such as "whether we'll have an joint RIR
> > trade show booth at a given international conference", "can we work on
> > one informational brochure on IPv4 runout/IPv6 rather than having five",
> > "can we have a single joint number resource statistics report", etc.
> >
> > In these cases, each RIR is fulfilling each existing mission and
> operating
> > plans, only coordinating with other RIRs to do so in a more efficient and
> > consistent manner.  Ultimately, each RIR acts under its own authority on
> > matters which are primarily outreach and operational in nature.
> >
> > Expanding the NRO to take on the functions listed could be done, but
> would
> > represent a fairly substantial change in the level of responsibility, and
> > may need to be accompanied by both organizational changes (e.g. actually
> > incorporating the NRO) and accountability changes (e.g. more than simply
> > to the RIR executive directors, as it is at present.)
> >
> > If this approach were to be promoted, it would be good to have ample
> > discussion on this list first, including the aspects noted above.
> >
> > /John
> >
> > John Curran
> > President and CEO
> > ARIN
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Iana-transition mailing list
> > Iana-transition at arin.net
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141016/ddc32ab6/attachment.html>

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct 16 19:38:49 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 23:38:49 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <CAMfXtQx6F6ftMfQAb_n1+cT-4EbVujViwo+xK061srdeguk4Nw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<CAKtE3zexikPV2YCnfsBfNdGHc4xvr4o4zkNewdapYiD8SzYs8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<F865D955-8845-44F4-A29B-F1D4DA946EBE@arin.net>
	<CAMfXtQx6F6ftMfQAb_n1+cT-4EbVujViwo+xK061srdeguk4Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F6A65608-9CC3-4641-95C5-CC4360071E54@arin.net>

On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:21 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> ...
>> Is there a particular suggestion that you would propose?
> 
> Let the AC do an internal nomination/election.  They
> are our reps.

That's an option... I'd like to ask the ARIN AC (and the ASO
AC folks from the region, who have experience on multi-region
teleconferences) both for volunteers, and then let the AC 
choose two.

The two folks chosen will almost certainly have to be heavily
involved in the drafting of the ARIN region submission (i.e. 
I _do_ expect that CRISP appointees to lead in assembly of 
the views on this mailing list into the ARIN region input...

Thoughts on the above?
/John



From jschiller at google.com  Thu Oct 16 19:38:54 2014
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:38:54 -0400
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6gxf_97O_N1tba2S1Ev6K2AifD6NQ89q1r8VqH32mKqXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <86dc41fa870648c28489f5031f44abc1@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMEFPCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<CAD_dc6gxf_97O_N1tba2S1Ev6K2AifD6NQ89q1r8VqH32mKqXg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2VxCrEjWscD8+Gkia-PyVorqOY0YuReT_JtrsvJSguYbg@mail.gmail.com>

Sean,

Just a clarification...  when you say
"what is however important for me is making sure that the RIR community
remains the ultimate source of allocation administration."

Do you mean it is important that the policy that the IANA operators follow
are the ones generated by the agreement of the 5 RIRs through the GPDP?

Or do you mean something else?

___Jason

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
>> Unless I am mistaken, the RIRs are paying something like US $ 800'000 per
>> year to ICANN.
>>
>> I imnagine that the NROs could provide the IANA function for considerably
>> less than that.
>>
>
> I think there is a reason why its called Internet cooperation for assigned
> names and numbers (ICANN) ;)
>
> I personally have no problem with who keeps allocation records, what is
> however important for me is making sure that the RIR community remains the
> ultimate source of allocation administration. At the moment the RIRs
> are[1], making sure such status will not get repelled/daunted would be the
> ultimate goal.
>
> Cheers!
> 1. Although not in its entirety, considering the global policy development
> approval process.
>
>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: David Huberman [mailto:David.Huberman at microsoft.com]
>> > Sent: jeudi, 16. octobre 2014 19:36
>> > To: John Curran; rhill at hill-a.ch
>> > Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
>> > Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>> >
>> >
>> > Regardless of any work that would need to be done, I support the
>> > idea of transitioning the traditional IANA addressing functions
>> > to the NRO. The IANA was run for decades as one person. The NRO
>> > can hire Leo Vegoda or someone else to perform that role. Funding
>> > can come directly from the NRO participants with no fee increase
>> > - just drop the significant money being paid to ICANN today.
>> >
>> > Bottom line for me: ICANN is not the appropriate vehicle for the
>> > IANA function. We engineers need to take back control of the
>> > engineering functions of IANA, wresting it away from professional
>> > do-nothings and lawyers (save our own lawyers, who of course, we love).
>> >
>> > David R Huberman
>> > Microsoft Corporation
>> > Principal, Global IP Addressing
>> >
>> > ________________________________________
>> > From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net
>> > <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of John Curran
>> > <jcurran at arin.net>
>> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:06:17 AM
>> > To: rhill at hill-a.ch
>> > Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
>> > Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>> >
>> > On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>> >
>> > > As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the
>> > following things with
>> > > respect to IP addresses:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs
>> > > 2. Ratifies the policies approved by the RIRs
>> > >
>> > > And, through the IANA function, it does the following:
>> > >
>> > > 3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs
>> > > 4. Publishes those allocations on its web site
>> > >
>> > > One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO,
>> > which would
>> > > in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those
>> > functions.  Since
>> > > the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that
>> > the members
>> > > of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.
>> >
>> > Richard -
>> >
>> > This is certainly possible, but it is worth noting that the NRO is a
>> > rather lightweight coordination function among the RIRs, allowing the
>> > RIRs to coordinate on matters such as "whether we'll have an joint RIR
>> > trade show booth at a given international conference", "can we work on
>> > one informational brochure on IPv4 runout/IPv6 rather than having five",
>> > "can we have a single joint number resource statistics report", etc.
>> >
>> > In these cases, each RIR is fulfilling each existing mission and
>> operating
>> > plans, only coordinating with other RIRs to do so in a more efficient
>> and
>> > consistent manner.  Ultimately, each RIR acts under its own authority on
>> > matters which are primarily outreach and operational in nature.
>> >
>> > Expanding the NRO to take on the functions listed could be done, but
>> would
>> > represent a fairly substantial change in the level of responsibility,
>> and
>> > may need to be accompanied by both organizational changes (e.g. actually
>> > incorporating the NRO) and accountability changes (e.g. more than simply
>> > to the RIR executive directors, as it is at present.)
>> >
>> > If this approach were to be promoted, it would be good to have ample
>> > discussion on this list first, including the aspects noted above.
>> >
>> > /John
>> >
>> > John Curran
>> > President and CEO
>> > ARIN
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Iana-transition mailing list
>> > Iana-transition at arin.net
>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iana-transition mailing list
>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>
>


-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141016/86cee568/attachment.html>

From tbiehn at gmail.com  Thu Oct 16 19:55:48 2014
From: tbiehn at gmail.com (Travis Biehn)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:55:48 -0400
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <F6A65608-9CC3-4641-95C5-CC4360071E54@arin.net>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<CAKtE3zexikPV2YCnfsBfNdGHc4xvr4o4zkNewdapYiD8SzYs8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<F865D955-8845-44F4-A29B-F1D4DA946EBE@arin.net>
	<CAMfXtQx6F6ftMfQAb_n1+cT-4EbVujViwo+xK061srdeguk4Nw@mail.gmail.com>
	<F6A65608-9CC3-4641-95C5-CC4360071E54@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAKtE3zefJdUvXjputLz59-aP4ksdaiDt_dK+ja24VD4Uz7jo=g@mail.gmail.com>

I don't enjoy the idea of having any member of an RIR appoint the two
non-staff appointees. I'd like to see that as a hard rule.

To be fully unambiguous, I am proposing that NGO's CRISP be amended to
include the following obligations and restrictions on appointees.

All appointees:

Must lodge their interest publicly. [On relevant publicly Read and Write
mailing lists.]
Must identify themselves and demonstrate that they are physically and
spiritually [demonstrate non-trivial ties] part of the RIR that serves them
and they intend to represent.
Must disclose all organizations, clubs and boards which they are members
of. This is meant to include current and past employers for the past 5
years.
Must substantiate their qualifications and how they are able to dedicate
the time and effort requisite of establishing a solution fitting the global
communities best interest. [On an hour / day, week basis.]

There is some verification of facts performed here.

A dice is rolled, if the selected appointee overlaps in employment or
membership (that is - a potential for the perception of cronyism is
identified) in any way with an existing appointee they are disqualified. (A
dice roll can here be substituted with some publicly verifiable source of
random bits...)

-Travis


On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:38 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:21 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> > ...
> >> Is there a particular suggestion that you would propose?
> >
> > Let the AC do an internal nomination/election.  They
> > are our reps.
>
> That's an option... I'd like to ask the ARIN AC (and the ASO
> AC folks from the region, who have experience on multi-region
> teleconferences) both for volunteers, and then let the AC
> choose two.
>
> The two folks chosen will almost certainly have to be heavily
> involved in the drafting of the ARIN region submission (i.e.
> I _do_ expect that CRISP appointees to lead in assembly of
> the views on this mailing list into the ARIN region input...
>
> Thoughts on the above?
> /John
>
>


-- 
Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> | LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn> | GitHub <http://github.com/tbiehn>
| TravisBiehn.com <http://www.travisbiehn.com> | Google Plus
<https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141016/1bbf80d6/attachment.html>

From andrew.dul at quark.net  Thu Oct 16 19:52:05 2014
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:52:05 -0700
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <54405A25.9020104@quark.net>

I find it a little concerning that last week when some of us asked (at
the ARIN meeting) about how the global process was going to work there
wasn't really a response.  And then 6 days later there is this
"proposal"...that apparently the NRO EC has all agreed to? 

2/3rds agreement amongst these 15 is all that is needed to call any
proposal consensus. Add to that 1/3 of the panel is composed by RIR
staff.  Can someone confirm that the RIR staff on this team are voting
members of the 15?  (The next thing we'll probably see is that the other
two members are either appointed by RIR staff or an RIR board)  Do we
really need RIR staff as voting members of this team?

This process is starting to not look very bottom up to me.

We have a sitting body, the NRO NC, which was elected/appointed by each
of the RIR constituencies to represent each region.  Why aren't they
being considered a valid group to perform this function (of judging
consensus) in an open and transparent manner?

I agree this isn't part of their normal duties, but given the CRISP
process is  "an adaptation of the existing Global Policy Development
Process"...  Why not use the NRO NC who already has the responsibility
for the Global Policy Development Process? 

Are there conflicts that the NRO NC would have by performing in this
role?  Or maybe we need a separate group completely separate from the
NRO/ASO?  How the members of this team are chosen is important if we
believe it will be hard to achieve consensus quickly on a submission to
the ICG. 

Maybe this is too simple...why not just take the submissions from each
of the RIRs, do some work to collate and collect the input.  Create the
submission document, then put that out for discussion and have consensus
judged by the the NRO NC on that document.  (Maybe iterate once on the
first round of feedback) Note any substantive objections in an appendix.

Andrew

On 10/16/2014 2:53 PM, John Curran wrote:
> Folks - 
>
> The NRO has issued the following proposal for a process to finalise the transition proposal 
> from the numbering community.
>
>  <https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team-crisp-team>
>
> The proposed CRISP team will include 3 members from each region (2 community members 
> and 1 RIR staff per region.)
>
> Discussion on this list of the NRO proposal is welcome.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition




From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Thu Oct 16 19:59:04 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:59:04 -0700
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <CAC4yj2VxCrEjWscD8+Gkia-PyVorqOY0YuReT_JtrsvJSguYbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <86dc41fa870648c28489f5031f44abc1@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMEFPCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<CAD_dc6gxf_97O_N1tba2S1Ev6K2AifD6NQ89q1r8VqH32mKqXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC4yj2VxCrEjWscD8+Gkia-PyVorqOY0YuReT_JtrsvJSguYbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6izsXm0d1=K=dXjpYxPQ-9iV_BHzM48n+Q-656CcBpOMg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
wrote:

> Sean,
>
> Just a clarification...  when you say
> "what is however important for me is making sure that the RIR community
> remains the ultimate source of allocation administration."
>
> Do you mean it is important that the policy that the IANA operators follow
> are the ones generated by the agreement of the 5 RIRs through the GPDP?
>

Exactly...and thanks for writing it better ;)

Cheers!


>
> Or do you mean something else?
>
> ___Jason
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> Unless I am mistaken, the RIRs are paying something like US $ 800'000 per
>>> year to ICANN.
>>>
>>> I imnagine that the NROs could provide the IANA function for considerably
>>> less than that.
>>>
>>
>> I think there is a reason why its called Internet cooperation for
>> assigned names and numbers (ICANN) ;)
>>
>> I personally have no problem with who keeps allocation records, what is
>> however important for me is making sure that the RIR community remains the
>> ultimate source of allocation administration. At the moment the RIRs
>> are[1], making sure such status will not get repelled/daunted would be the
>> ultimate goal.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> 1. Although not in its entirety, considering the global policy
>> development approval process.
>>
>>
>>> Best,
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: David Huberman [mailto:David.Huberman at microsoft.com]
>>> > Sent: jeudi, 16. octobre 2014 19:36
>>> > To: John Curran; rhill at hill-a.ch
>>> > Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
>>> > Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Regardless of any work that would need to be done, I support the
>>> > idea of transitioning the traditional IANA addressing functions
>>> > to the NRO. The IANA was run for decades as one person. The NRO
>>> > can hire Leo Vegoda or someone else to perform that role. Funding
>>> > can come directly from the NRO participants with no fee increase
>>> > - just drop the significant money being paid to ICANN today.
>>> >
>>> > Bottom line for me: ICANN is not the appropriate vehicle for the
>>> > IANA function. We engineers need to take back control of the
>>> > engineering functions of IANA, wresting it away from professional
>>> > do-nothings and lawyers (save our own lawyers, who of course, we love).
>>> >
>>> > David R Huberman
>>> > Microsoft Corporation
>>> > Principal, Global IP Addressing
>>> >
>>> > ________________________________________
>>> > From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net
>>> > <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of John Curran
>>> > <jcurran at arin.net>
>>> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:06:17 AM
>>> > To: rhill at hill-a.ch
>>> > Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
>>> > Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>>> >
>>> > On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the
>>> > following things with
>>> > > respect to IP addresses:
>>> > >
>>> > > 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs
>>> > > 2. Ratifies the policies approved by the RIRs
>>> > >
>>> > > And, through the IANA function, it does the following:
>>> > >
>>> > > 3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs
>>> > > 4. Publishes those allocations on its web site
>>> > >
>>> > > One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO,
>>> > which would
>>> > > in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those
>>> > functions.  Since
>>> > > the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that
>>> > the members
>>> > > of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.
>>> >
>>> > Richard -
>>> >
>>> > This is certainly possible, but it is worth noting that the NRO is a
>>> > rather lightweight coordination function among the RIRs, allowing the
>>> > RIRs to coordinate on matters such as "whether we'll have an joint RIR
>>> > trade show booth at a given international conference", "can we work on
>>> > one informational brochure on IPv4 runout/IPv6 rather than having
>>> five",
>>> > "can we have a single joint number resource statistics report", etc.
>>> >
>>> > In these cases, each RIR is fulfilling each existing mission and
>>> operating
>>> > plans, only coordinating with other RIRs to do so in a more efficient
>>> and
>>> > consistent manner.  Ultimately, each RIR acts under its own authority
>>> on
>>> > matters which are primarily outreach and operational in nature.
>>> >
>>> > Expanding the NRO to take on the functions listed could be done, but
>>> would
>>> > represent a fairly substantial change in the level of responsibility,
>>> and
>>> > may need to be accompanied by both organizational changes (e.g.
>>> actually
>>> > incorporating the NRO) and accountability changes (e.g. more than
>>> simply
>>> > to the RIR executive directors, as it is at present.)
>>> >
>>> > If this approach were to be promoted, it would be good to have ample
>>> > discussion on this list first, including the aspects noted above.
>>> >
>>> > /John
>>> >
>>> > John Curran
>>> > President and CEO
>>> > ARIN
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Iana-transition mailing list
>>> > Iana-transition at arin.net
>>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Iana-transition mailing list
>>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
>> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>>
>> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iana-transition mailing list
>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141016/615fe1aa/attachment.html>

From jschiller at google.com  Thu Oct 16 20:00:20 2014
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 20:00:20 -0400
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <CAKtE3zefJdUvXjputLz59-aP4ksdaiDt_dK+ja24VD4Uz7jo=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<CAKtE3zexikPV2YCnfsBfNdGHc4xvr4o4zkNewdapYiD8SzYs8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<F865D955-8845-44F4-A29B-F1D4DA946EBE@arin.net>
	<CAMfXtQx6F6ftMfQAb_n1+cT-4EbVujViwo+xK061srdeguk4Nw@mail.gmail.com>
	<F6A65608-9CC3-4641-95C5-CC4360071E54@arin.net>
	<CAKtE3zefJdUvXjputLz59-aP4ksdaiDt_dK+ja24VD4Uz7jo=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2W2hJtDbsoCJuRD0S1oS2BkTEmayRdJFyAWKNngAJPjdQ@mail.gmail.com>

Travis,

You mentioned "proposing that NGO's CRISP be amended to include the
following obligations and restrictions on appointees. "

Would it be acceptable to you to constrain the discussion to the ARIN
selection process, and not proscribe requirements on the other 4 RIRs?

__Jason

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Travis Biehn <tbiehn at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't enjoy the idea of having any member of an RIR appoint the two
> non-staff appointees. I'd like to see that as a hard rule.
>
> To be fully unambiguous, I am proposing that NGO's CRISP be amended to
> include the following obligations and restrictions on appointees.
>
> All appointees:
>
> Must lodge their interest publicly. [On relevant publicly Read and Write
> mailing lists.]
> Must identify themselves and demonstrate that they are physically and
> spiritually [demonstrate non-trivial ties] part of the RIR that serves them
> and they intend to represent.
> Must disclose all organizations, clubs and boards which they are members
> of. This is meant to include current and past employers for the past 5
> years.
> Must substantiate their qualifications and how they are able to dedicate
> the time and effort requisite of establishing a solution fitting the global
> communities best interest. [On an hour / day, week basis.]
>
> There is some verification of facts performed here.
>
> A dice is rolled, if the selected appointee overlaps in employment or
> membership (that is - a potential for the perception of cronyism is
> identified) in any way with an existing appointee they are disqualified. (A
> dice roll can here be substituted with some publicly verifiable source of
> random bits...)
>
> -Travis
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:38 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:21 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> > ...
>> >> Is there a particular suggestion that you would propose?
>> >
>> > Let the AC do an internal nomination/election.  They
>> > are our reps.
>>
>> That's an option... I'd like to ask the ARIN AC (and the ASO
>> AC folks from the region, who have experience on multi-region
>> teleconferences) both for volunteers, and then let the AC
>> choose two.
>>
>> The two folks chosen will almost certainly have to be heavily
>> involved in the drafting of the ARIN region submission (i.e.
>> I _do_ expect that CRISP appointees to lead in assembly of
>> the views on this mailing list into the ARIN region input...
>>
>> Thoughts on the above?
>> /John
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> | LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn> | GitHub
> <http://github.com/tbiehn> | TravisBiehn.com <http://www.travisbiehn.com> |
> Google Plus <https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>
>


-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141016/f017609c/attachment.html>

From tbiehn at gmail.com  Thu Oct 16 20:07:21 2014
From: tbiehn at gmail.com (Travis Biehn)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 20:07:21 -0400
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <CAC4yj2W2hJtDbsoCJuRD0S1oS2BkTEmayRdJFyAWKNngAJPjdQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<CAKtE3zexikPV2YCnfsBfNdGHc4xvr4o4zkNewdapYiD8SzYs8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<F865D955-8845-44F4-A29B-F1D4DA946EBE@arin.net>
	<CAMfXtQx6F6ftMfQAb_n1+cT-4EbVujViwo+xK061srdeguk4Nw@mail.gmail.com>
	<F6A65608-9CC3-4641-95C5-CC4360071E54@arin.net>
	<CAKtE3zefJdUvXjputLz59-aP4ksdaiDt_dK+ja24VD4Uz7jo=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC4yj2W2hJtDbsoCJuRD0S1oS2BkTEmayRdJFyAWKNngAJPjdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKtE3zd1Zui2eonMiBxZ8ojFG+_GbRvHcsGpRsXpJS5JmSJgSg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
wrote:

> Travis,
>
> You mentioned "proposing that NGO's CRISP be amended to include the
> following obligations and restrictions on appointees. "
>
> Would it be acceptable to you to constrain the discussion to the ARIN
> selection process, and not proscribe requirements on the other 4 RIRs?
>

We're discussing the NRO proposal, which necessarily impacts all of the
RIRs. I am responding to John Curran's request for solution to the
deficiencies identified in thread NRO's CRISP proposal.

Specifically "If a RIR is to agree to a 2/3rds majority vote, then
potentials for collusion should be minimized by more explicit terms for
appointees to the 'CRISP Team.'"

So for the purposes of this thread - no, I can't.

__Jason
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Travis Biehn <tbiehn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't enjoy the idea of having any member of an RIR appoint the two
>> non-staff appointees. I'd like to see that as a hard rule.
>>
>> To be fully unambiguous, I am proposing that NGO's CRISP be amended to
>> include the following obligations and restrictions on appointees.
>>
>> All appointees:
>>
>> Must lodge their interest publicly. [On relevant publicly Read and Write
>> mailing lists.]
>> Must identify themselves and demonstrate that they are physically and
>> spiritually [demonstrate non-trivial ties] part of the RIR that serves them
>> and they intend to represent.
>> Must disclose all organizations, clubs and boards which they are members
>> of. This is meant to include current and past employers for the past 5
>> years.
>> Must substantiate their qualifications and how they are able to dedicate
>> the time and effort requisite of establishing a solution fitting the global
>> communities best interest. [On an hour / day, week basis.]
>>
>> There is some verification of facts performed here.
>>
>> A dice is rolled, if the selected appointee overlaps in employment or
>> membership (that is - a potential for the perception of cronyism is
>> identified) in any way with an existing appointee they are disqualified. (A
>> dice roll can here be substituted with some publicly verifiable source of
>> random bits...)
>>
>> -Travis
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:38 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:21 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> > ...
>>> >> Is there a particular suggestion that you would propose?
>>> >
>>> > Let the AC do an internal nomination/election.  They
>>> > are our reps.
>>>
>>> That's an option... I'd like to ask the ARIN AC (and the ASO
>>> AC folks from the region, who have experience on multi-region
>>> teleconferences) both for volunteers, and then let the AC
>>> choose two.
>>>
>>> The two folks chosen will almost certainly have to be heavily
>>> involved in the drafting of the ARIN region submission (i.e.
>>> I _do_ expect that CRISP appointees to lead in assembly of
>>> the views on this mailing list into the ARIN region input...
>>>
>>> Thoughts on the above?
>>> /John
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> | LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn> | GitHub
>> <http://github.com/tbiehn> | TravisBiehn.com <http://www.travisbiehn.com> |
>> Google Plus <https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iana-transition mailing list
>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
>
>


-- 
Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> | LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn> | GitHub <http://github.com/tbiehn>
| TravisBiehn.com <http://www.travisbiehn.com> | Google Plus
<https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141016/cfab20cb/attachment.html>

From jschiller at google.com  Thu Oct 16 20:15:27 2014
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 20:15:27 -0400
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6izsXm0d1=K=dXjpYxPQ-9iV_BHzM48n+Q-656CcBpOMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <86dc41fa870648c28489f5031f44abc1@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMEFPCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<CAD_dc6gxf_97O_N1tba2S1Ev6K2AifD6NQ89q1r8VqH32mKqXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC4yj2VxCrEjWscD8+Gkia-PyVorqOY0YuReT_JtrsvJSguYbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD_dc6izsXm0d1=K=dXjpYxPQ-9iV_BHzM48n+Q-656CcBpOMg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2Xers5yM0wGZ8SMrQVOrCc23p91K-zjPNb+Up12zESigQ@mail.gmail.com>

Sean,

I agree.  it is important that the IANA operators follow are the ones
generated by the agreement of the 5 RIRs through the GPDP.

I don't see how this IANA oversight transition would in any way affect the
way policy is created, or the process for providing advice on how that
policy is implemented by whomever performs the IANA function.

What may be at risk is judging the compliance of the IANA operators in
adhering to those policies.  I suspect there are some SLA metrics in an
NTIA/ICANN MoU/SoW/contract document, and that text will be moved into some
other agreement held be some other entity, who can take some action.  The
question is in what document should we put that text, and who is the
agreement between.

___Jason



On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sean,
>>
>> Just a clarification...  when you say
>> "what is however important for me is making sure that the RIR community
>> remains the ultimate source of allocation administration."
>>
>> Do you mean it is important that the policy that the IANA operators
>> follow are the ones generated by the agreement of the 5 RIRs through the
>> GPDP?
>>
>
> Exactly...and thanks for writing it better ;)
>
> Cheers!
>
>
>>
>> Or do you mean something else?
>>
>> ___Jason
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unless I am mistaken, the RIRs are paying something like US $ 800'000
>>>> per
>>>> year to ICANN.
>>>>
>>>> I imnagine that the NROs could provide the IANA function for
>>>> considerably
>>>> less than that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think there is a reason why its called Internet cooperation for
>>> assigned names and numbers (ICANN) ;)
>>>
>>> I personally have no problem with who keeps allocation records, what is
>>> however important for me is making sure that the RIR community remains the
>>> ultimate source of allocation administration. At the moment the RIRs
>>> are[1], making sure such status will not get repelled/daunted would be the
>>> ultimate goal.
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> 1. Although not in its entirety, considering the global policy
>>> development approval process.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > From: David Huberman [mailto:David.Huberman at microsoft.com]
>>>> > Sent: jeudi, 16. octobre 2014 19:36
>>>> > To: John Curran; rhill at hill-a.ch
>>>> > Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
>>>> > Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Regardless of any work that would need to be done, I support the
>>>> > idea of transitioning the traditional IANA addressing functions
>>>> > to the NRO. The IANA was run for decades as one person. The NRO
>>>> > can hire Leo Vegoda or someone else to perform that role. Funding
>>>> > can come directly from the NRO participants with no fee increase
>>>> > - just drop the significant money being paid to ICANN today.
>>>> >
>>>> > Bottom line for me: ICANN is not the appropriate vehicle for the
>>>> > IANA function. We engineers need to take back control of the
>>>> > engineering functions of IANA, wresting it away from professional
>>>> > do-nothings and lawyers (save our own lawyers, who of course, we
>>>> love).
>>>> >
>>>> > David R Huberman
>>>> > Microsoft Corporation
>>>> > Principal, Global IP Addressing
>>>> >
>>>> > ________________________________________
>>>> > From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net
>>>> > <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of John Curran
>>>> > <jcurran at arin.net>
>>>> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:06:17 AM
>>>> > To: rhill at hill-a.ch
>>>> > Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
>>>> > Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>>>> >
>>>> > On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the
>>>> > following things with
>>>> > > respect to IP addresses:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs
>>>> > > 2. Ratifies the policies approved by the RIRs
>>>> > >
>>>> > > And, through the IANA function, it does the following:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > 3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs
>>>> > > 4. Publishes those allocations on its web site
>>>> > >
>>>> > > One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO,
>>>> > which would
>>>> > > in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those
>>>> > functions.  Since
>>>> > > the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that
>>>> > the members
>>>> > > of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.
>>>> >
>>>> > Richard -
>>>> >
>>>> > This is certainly possible, but it is worth noting that the NRO is a
>>>> > rather lightweight coordination function among the RIRs, allowing the
>>>> > RIRs to coordinate on matters such as "whether we'll have an joint RIR
>>>> > trade show booth at a given international conference", "can we work on
>>>> > one informational brochure on IPv4 runout/IPv6 rather than having
>>>> five",
>>>> > "can we have a single joint number resource statistics report", etc.
>>>> >
>>>> > In these cases, each RIR is fulfilling each existing mission and
>>>> operating
>>>> > plans, only coordinating with other RIRs to do so in a more efficient
>>>> and
>>>> > consistent manner.  Ultimately, each RIR acts under its own authority
>>>> on
>>>> > matters which are primarily outreach and operational in nature.
>>>> >
>>>> > Expanding the NRO to take on the functions listed could be done, but
>>>> would
>>>> > represent a fairly substantial change in the level of responsibility,
>>>> and
>>>> > may need to be accompanied by both organizational changes (e.g.
>>>> actually
>>>> > incorporating the NRO) and accountability changes (e.g. more than
>>>> simply
>>>> > to the RIR executive directors, as it is at present.)
>>>> >
>>>> > If this approach were to be promoted, it would be good to have ample
>>>> > discussion on this list first, including the aspects noted above.
>>>> >
>>>> > /John
>>>> >
>>>> > John Curran
>>>> > President and CEO
>>>> > ARIN
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Iana-transition mailing list
>>>> > Iana-transition at arin.net
>>>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Iana-transition mailing list
>>>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
>>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
>>> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>>> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>>>
>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Iana-transition mailing list
>>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________________
>> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>


-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141016/3b3e0a56/attachment.html>

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct 16 20:51:36 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:51:36 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <54405A25.9020104@quark.net>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<54405A25.9020104@quark.net>
Message-ID: <C838D139-1B09-42F3-8BC5-9C12C8ECDAFA@corp.arin.net>

On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> 
> I find it a little concerning that last week when some of us asked (at
> the ARIN meeting) about how the global process was going to work there
> wasn't really a response.  And then 6 days later there is this
> "proposal"...that apparently the NRO EC has all agreed to? 

This proposal was written since that time, and is a proposal 
for the community to discuss.  The NRO has not adopted it,
although each of the NRO-EC members has reviewed it and
considered it a reasonable starting point to release for
discussion.

> 2/3rds agreement amongst these 15 is all that is needed to call any
> proposal consensus. Add to that 1/3 of the panel is composed by RIR
> staff.  Can someone confirm that the RIR staff on this team are voting
> members of the 15?  

Interesting question... what do you propose?

> This process is starting to not look very bottom up to me.
> 
> We have a sitting body, the NRO NC, which was elected/appointed by each
> of the RIR constituencies to represent each region.  Why aren't they
> being considered a valid group to perform this function (of judging
> consensus) in an open and transparent manner?

This team will have to work on a expedited basis on a topic
which is not number resource policy (that which the NRO NC
representatives were elected for...)  I will note, having 
observed that NRO NC/ASO AC since inception, that it is a 
remarkably diligent council, but is not particularly brisk
due to its fairly rigorous methods.

> I agree this isn't part of their normal duties, but given the CRISP
> process is  "an adaptation of the existing Global Policy Development
> Process"...  Why not use the NRO NC who already has the responsibility
> for the Global Policy Development Process? 

I can think of several very good reasons - the  ASO AC does not 
have any operating experience working with the IANA on requests, 
escalations, reporting, et (which is actually quite a bit of the 
IANA accountability aspects that must be covered), it has existing 
operating procedures which may not responsive to the time demands -
<https://aso.icann.org/documents/operational-documents/operating-procedures-aso-ac/>,
it has no method for moving forward except with complete agreement
among all all submissions from the RIR processes, it doesn't craft
documents, but instead is dependent on the RIR regional policy 
development processes (which are far too time intensive for this),
etc.

> Are there conflicts that the NRO NC would have by performing in this
> role?  Or maybe we need a separate group completely separate from the
> NRO/ASO?  How the members of this team are chosen is important if we
> believe it will be hard to achieve consensus quickly on a submission to
> the ICG. 

How do you believe they should they be chosen in the ARIN region?

> Maybe this is too simple...why not just take the submissions from each
> of the RIRs, do some work to collate and collect the input.  Create the
> submission document, then put that out for discussion and have consensus
> judged by the the NRO NC on that document.  (Maybe iterate once on the
> first round of feedback) Note any substantive objections in an appendix.

What you describe above for process is what the consolidation team 
should be doing... consolidate input from each region into a submission
document and drive discussion on areas that lack consensus.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Thu Oct 16 21:01:41 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:01:41 -0700
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <C838D139-1B09-42F3-8BC5-9C12C8ECDAFA@corp.arin.net>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<54405A25.9020104@quark.net>
	<C838D139-1B09-42F3-8BC5-9C12C8ECDAFA@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6hGEnZV=PtkGw7aCuFfSJE-eu1yGX_MQ0rXWZs6jWfFWQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:51 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> >
> > I find it a little concerning that last week when some of us asked (at
> > the ARIN meeting) about how the global process was going to work there
> > wasn't really a response.  And then 6 days later there is this
> > "proposal"...that apparently the NRO EC has all agreed to?
>
> This proposal was written since that time, and is a proposal for the
> community to discuss.


Well i think it should have been presented at the ARIN meeting, since you
say its been written since.


> The NRO has not adopted it, although each of the NRO-EC members has
> reviewed it and considered it a reasonable starting point to release for
> discussion.
>

Perhaps its worth noting that there is noting at that url indicating that
the text is indeed a draft document (hopefully that can be updated).
Nevertheless, this is a minor issues, and i hope some of the comments
already coming in through the other RIRs will be considered accordingly.

Cheers!


> > 2/3rds agreement amongst these 15 is all that is needed to call any
> > proposal consensus. Add to that 1/3 of the panel is composed by RIR
> > staff.  Can someone confirm that the RIR staff on this team are voting
> > members of the 15?
>
> Interesting question... what do you propose?
>
> > This process is starting to not look very bottom up to me.
> >
> > We have a sitting body, the NRO NC, which was elected/appointed by each
> > of the RIR constituencies to represent each region.  Why aren't they
> > being considered a valid group to perform this function (of judging
> > consensus) in an open and transparent manner?
>
> This team will have to work on a expedited basis on a topic
> which is not number resource policy (that which the NRO NC
> representatives were elected for...)  I will note, having
> observed that NRO NC/ASO AC since inception, that it is a
> remarkably diligent council, but is not particularly brisk
> due to its fairly rigorous methods.
>
> > I agree this isn't part of their normal duties, but given the CRISP
> > process is  "an adaptation of the existing Global Policy Development
> > Process"...  Why not use the NRO NC who already has the responsibility
> > for the Global Policy Development Process?
>
> I can think of several very good reasons - the  ASO AC does not
> have any operating experience working with the IANA on requests,
> escalations, reporting, et (which is actually quite a bit of the
> IANA accountability aspects that must be covered), it has existing
> operating procedures which may not responsive to the time demands -
> <
> https://aso.icann.org/documents/operational-documents/operating-procedures-aso-ac/
> >,
> it has no method for moving forward except with complete agreement
> among all all submissions from the RIR processes, it doesn't craft
> documents, but instead is dependent on the RIR regional policy
> development processes (which are far too time intensive for this),
> etc.
>
> > Are there conflicts that the NRO NC would have by performing in this
> > role?  Or maybe we need a separate group completely separate from the
> > NRO/ASO?  How the members of this team are chosen is important if we
> > believe it will be hard to achieve consensus quickly on a submission to
> > the ICG.
>
> How do you believe they should they be chosen in the ARIN region?
>
> > Maybe this is too simple...why not just take the submissions from each
> > of the RIRs, do some work to collate and collect the input.  Create the
> > submission document, then put that out for discussion and have consensus
> > judged by the the NRO NC on that document.  (Maybe iterate once on the
> > first round of feedback) Note any substantive objections in an appendix.
>
> What you describe above for process is what the consolidation team
> should be doing... consolidate input from each region into a submission
> document and drive discussion on areas that lack consensus.
>
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141016/5b167fe3/attachment.html>

From louie at louie.net  Thu Oct 16 21:09:35 2014
From: louie at louie.net (Louie Lee)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:09:35 -0700
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6hGEnZV=PtkGw7aCuFfSJE-eu1yGX_MQ0rXWZs6jWfFWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<54405A25.9020104@quark.net>
	<C838D139-1B09-42F3-8BC5-9C12C8ECDAFA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAD_dc6hGEnZV=PtkGw7aCuFfSJE-eu1yGX_MQ0rXWZs6jWfFWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJvgag0ubrM7n0bhjh-DBb4-i0FOWJE05s4r5hbtv3-7XLXCMQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:51 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > I find it a little concerning that last week when some of us asked (at
>> > the ARIN meeting) about how the global process was going to work there
>> > wasn't really a response.  And then 6 days later there is this
>> > "proposal"...that apparently the NRO EC has all agreed to?
>>
>> This proposal was written since that time, and is a proposal for the
>> community to discuss.
>
>
> Well i think it should have been presented at the ARIN meeting, since you
> say its been written since.
>

I am certain that John meant that the proposal was written after the time
of the ARIN meeting last week, so was not available for presentation at the
ARIN meeting.

Louie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141016/f3fc12ac/attachment.html>

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct 16 21:20:09 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 01:20:09 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <CAJvgag0ubrM7n0bhjh-DBb4-i0FOWJE05s4r5hbtv3-7XLXCMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<54405A25.9020104@quark.net>
	<C838D139-1B09-42F3-8BC5-9C12C8ECDAFA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAD_dc6hGEnZV=PtkGw7aCuFfSJE-eu1yGX_MQ0rXWZs6jWfFWQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJvgag0ubrM7n0bhjh-DBb4-i0FOWJE05s4r5hbtv3-7XLXCMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <19426DD4-F37A-49D1-B868-E1F59C43793C@arin.net>

On Oct 16, 2014, at 6:09 PM, Louie Lee <louie at louie.net<mailto:louie at louie.net>> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:51 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net<mailto:andrew.dul at quark.net>> wrote:
>
> I find it a little concerning that last week when some of us asked (at
> the ARIN meeting) about how the global process was going to work there
> wasn't really a response.  And then 6 days later there is this
> "proposal"...that apparently the NRO EC has all agreed to?

This proposal was written since that time, and is a proposal for the community to discuss.

Well i think it should have been presented at the ARIN meeting, since you say its been written since.

I am certain that John meant that the proposal was written after the time of the ARIN meeting last week, so was not available for presentation at the ARIN meeting.

Correct - it wasn?t until after some ntensive editing this week at ICANN
that a starting draft was agreed upon (ideally, it would have nice for it to
have been earlier in the this week here as well, since there were ample
questions about how this was going to be handled throughout the week.)

As it is, we now at least have a initial draft to start discussing in each
region...

FYI,
/John

p.s. By the way, the accompanying global mailing list proposed for discussion
       is now up and available - https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141017/3a6b75f6/attachment.html>

From andrew.dul at quark.net  Fri Oct 17 13:51:10 2014
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:51:10 -0700
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <C838D139-1B09-42F3-8BC5-9C12C8ECDAFA@corp.arin.net>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<54405A25.9020104@quark.net>
	<C838D139-1B09-42F3-8BC5-9C12C8ECDAFA@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <5441570E.4020907@quark.net>

On 10/16/2014 5:51 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>> 2/3rds agreement amongst these 15 is all that is needed to call any
>> proposal consensus. Add to that 1/3 of the panel is composed by RIR
>> staff.  Can someone confirm that the RIR staff on this team are voting
>> members of the 15?  
> Interesting question... what do you propose?

I have suggested we use the members of the NRO NC.  You appear not to
agree with that suggestion, and that is fine.  I'd certainly like others
to post on the same topic if they happen to agree with me.

Assuming we go forward with this plan as currently outlined, I'd like to
see that those who judge consensus on this team should all be community
members.

>> This process is starting to not look very bottom up to me.
>>
>> We have a sitting body, the NRO NC, which was elected/appointed by each
>> of the RIR constituencies to represent each region.  Why aren't they
>> being considered a valid group to perform this function (of judging
>> consensus) in an open and transparent manner?
> This team will have to work on a expedited basis on a topic
> which is not number resource policy (that which the NRO NC
> representatives were elected for...)  I will note, having 
> observed that NRO NC/ASO AC since inception, that it is a 
> remarkably diligent council, but is not particularly brisk
> due to its fairly rigorous methods.

I only suggested that the members of the NRO NC were an appropriate
group to judge consensus during this process. I am well aware that the
current global policy process is very slow moving.  The members of this
team could certainly choose their own method for reviewing and moving
forward with this proposal.

>> Are there conflicts that the NRO NC would have by performing in this
>> role?  Or maybe we need a separate group completely separate from the
>> NRO/ASO?  How the members of this team are chosen is important if we
>> believe it will be hard to achieve consensus quickly on a submission to
>> the ICG. 
> How do you believe they should they be chosen in the ARIN region?

Given the restrictive timeline, my only suggestion would be to take
volunteers from the community and then choose by lot or vote of the AC.

Andrew






From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Fri Oct 17 14:08:04 2014
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:08:04 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <544045B6.1030207@quark.net>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMEFPCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<544045B6.1030207@quark.net>
Message-ID: <5bc43c5576c743699d58889c97b2efca@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

Andrew,

The problem, as I see it, is two-fold:

1) ICANN isn't focused on addressing.  I just attended their ICANN51 meeting in Los Angeles.  It was thousands of attendees, with barely any engineers present.  The meeting was almost 100% focused on the naming registry game and finding ways to have more meetings. Quite a surprising number of interactions I had this week involved me noting that I run the numbering shop at Microsoft, and the person I was talking to asking what numbering was.

2) IANA, the function that actually performs the work, is still mostly 1 person: Leo Vegoda.  The job remains primarily focused on:
- keeping the files up-to-date on which RIR has which numbers
- watching over the reverse DNS management scripts to ensure they're working
- periodically giving out new number space ranges to an RIR

This function, again performed primarily by one person, is overseen by an organization with a ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY NINE MILLION DOLLAR BUDGET for FY15.  Wow.  $159mm budget.  It's projecting to run a $18mm net surplus in FY15.   Here's the link to the budget for FY15 that is approved by the Board:  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy15-16sep14-en.pdf

How much of this $159mm will be spent to support the ASO and the IANA function? 

Proposed solution:
A) The NRO should petition USGOV to take IANA's addressing function away from ICANN, and run it themselves using the monies already paid to ICANN from the RIR membership dollars.
B) The .arpa TLD needs to move to the NRO.  Then one of the RIRs should step up and take responsibility for its administration.
C) Any shortfall in operating expenses for either of the above can be covered by the reserve funds that numerous RIRs currently hold. That's a good use of surplus money.

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing

-----Original Message-----
From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net [mailto:iana-transition-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:25 PM
To: iana-transition at arin.net
Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?

While $800k certainly isn't a small amount of money it, I'll postulate that it also isn't a huge amount. 

ICANN does a lot of "stuff" a lot of which isn't related to numbers at all, but it does act as a lightening rod for lots of global issues.  Its possible that an independent NRO would also have to deal with some of those issues.  In that light perhaps we are getting the value out of our relationship with ICANN?  ICANN certainly isn't perfect, but the working relationship between the numbers community and ICANN, while odd, has been highly functional and focused on specific issues where global coordination is necessary.

Andrew

On 10/16/2014 11:35 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
> Unless I am mistaken, the RIRs are paying something like US $ 800'000 
> per year to ICANN.
>
> I imnagine that the NROs could provide the IANA function for 
> considerably less than that.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Huberman [mailto:David.Huberman at microsoft.com]
>> Sent: jeudi, 16. octobre 2014 19:36
>> To: John Curran; rhill at hill-a.ch
>> Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>>
>>
>> Regardless of any work that would need to be done, I support the idea 
>> of transitioning the traditional IANA addressing functions to the 
>> NRO. The IANA was run for decades as one person. The NRO can hire Leo 
>> Vegoda or someone else to perform that role. Funding can come 
>> directly from the NRO participants with no fee increase
>> - just drop the significant money being paid to ICANN today.
>>
>> Bottom line for me: ICANN is not the appropriate vehicle for the IANA 
>> function. We engineers need to take back control of the engineering 
>> functions of IANA, wresting it away from professional do-nothings and 
>> lawyers (save our own lawyers, who of course, we love).
>>
>> David R Huberman
>> Microsoft Corporation
>> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net 
>> <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of John Curran 
>> <jcurran at arin.net>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:06:17 AM
>> To: rhill at hill-a.ch
>> Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>>
>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the
>> following things with
>>> respect to IP addresses:
>>>
>>> 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs 2. Ratifies the policies 
>>> approved by the RIRs
>>>
>>> And, through the IANA function, it does the following:
>>>
>>> 3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs 4. Publishes 
>>> those allocations on its web site
>>>
>>> One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO,
>> which would
>>> in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those
>> functions.  Since
>>> the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that
>> the members
>>> of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.
>> Richard -
>>
>> This is certainly possible, but it is worth noting that the NRO is a 
>> rather lightweight coordination function among the RIRs, allowing the 
>> RIRs to coordinate on matters such as "whether we'll have an joint 
>> RIR trade show booth at a given international conference", "can we 
>> work on one informational brochure on IPv4 runout/IPv6 rather than 
>> having five", "can we have a single joint number resource statistics report", etc.
>>
>> In these cases, each RIR is fulfilling each existing mission and 
>> operating plans, only coordinating with other RIRs to do so in a more 
>> efficient and consistent manner.  Ultimately, each RIR acts under its 
>> own authority on matters which are primarily outreach and operational in nature.
>>
>> Expanding the NRO to take on the functions listed could be done, but 
>> would represent a fairly substantial change in the level of 
>> responsibility, and may need to be accompanied by both organizational 
>> changes (e.g. actually incorporating the NRO) and accountability 
>> changes (e.g. more than simply to the RIR executive directors, as it 
>> is at present.)
>>
>> If this approach were to be promoted, it would be good to have ample 
>> discussion on this list first, including the aspects noted above.
>>
>> /John
>>
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> ARIN
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iana-transition mailing list
>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition

_______________________________________________
Iana-transition mailing list
Iana-transition at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition


From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Oct 17 14:14:21 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:14:21 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <5441570E.4020907@quark.net>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<54405A25.9020104@quark.net>
	<C838D139-1B09-42F3-8BC5-9C12C8ECDAFA@corp.arin.net>
	<5441570E.4020907@quark.net>
Message-ID: <F0435188-5BBF-4523-B893-4C63ADE9F74D@arin.net>


On Oct 17, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> ...
> Assuming we go forward with this plan as currently outlined, I'd like to
> see that those who judge consensus on this team should all be community
> members.

Acknowledged.  If no one feels otherwise, I will carry that back as a 
recommendation for change from this region.  

> ...
>> This team will have to work on a expedited basis on a topic
>> which is not number resource policy (that which the NRO NC
>> representatives were elected for...)  I will note, having 
>> observed that NRO NC/ASO AC since inception, that it is a 
>> remarkably diligent council, but is not particularly brisk
>> due to its fairly rigorous methods.
> 
> I only suggested that the members of the NRO NC were an appropriate
> group to judge consensus during this process. I am well aware that the
> current global policy process is very slow moving.  The members of this
> team could certainly choose their own method for reviewing and moving
> forward with this proposal.

That is one option; we would be in a very bad place if the group could
not come to agreement on the process to be used.  Given the risk that
may result (and imputed risk to ARIN's ability to perform its mission),
I would feel much more comfortable with nearly _any_ process for the 
team to "review and move forward", so long as it is set in the charter 
so that the team has certainty in processes and proceed immediately 
with its consolidation work.

How do other folks feel about this?  (I can convey a desire to strike
this part from the proposed charter if that is the desire in this region,
but would suggest that we also have compelling reasoning that we can
share with the other regions should we propose this change...)

>>> Are there conflicts that the NRO NC would have by performing in this
>>> role?  Or maybe we need a separate group completely separate from the
>>> NRO/ASO?  How the members of this team are chosen is important if we
>>> believe it will be hard to achieve consensus quickly on a submission to
>>> the ICG. 
>> How do you believe they should they be chosen in the ARIN region?
> 
> Given the restrictive timeline, my only suggestion would be to take
> volunteers from the community and then choose by lot or vote of the AC.

Andrew - you don't think that the volunteers should be from the pool of 
people already elected by the ARIN community for AC or ASO AC roles?  I
am quite concerned with people being selected for this role representing
the region without the membership having already vetted them for such a
responsibility...  Do you believe this is a needless concern?

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN







From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Fri Oct 17 14:12:00 2014
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:12:00 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <267360661f2a43b69d9a350083ea5fbe@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

I think it should be 2 community members from each RIR, chosen however each RIR's community wishes. That's 10 total people, which is a small enough group to actually get things done.

There should be 1 or 2 RIR staffers total in attendance, whose sole purpose is to consolidate the agreed-upon ideas into a working document, and to publish the document wherever it's needed/wanted.  Einar, for example, should be one of the two staffers.  Maybe Adam Gosling or the RIPE counterpart should be the other.  

As for our region representatives, I mostly agree with a previous poster's idea:

1) Call for participants on this list
2) Everyone who wants to participate must do so publicly
3) Have the ARIN AC select which 2 participants will represent ARIN's community

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing

-----Original Message-----
From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net [mailto:iana-transition-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:54 PM
To: iana-transition at arin.net
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR regional inputs into single ICG response

Folks - 

The NRO has issued the following proposal for a process to finalise the transition proposal from the numbering community.

 <https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team-crisp-team>

The proposed CRISP team will include 3 members from each region (2 community members and 1 RIR staff per region.)

Discussion on this list of the NRO proposal is welcome.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

_______________________________________________
Iana-transition mailing list
Iana-transition at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition


From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com  Fri Oct 17 14:26:45 2014
From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:26:45 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <F0435188-5BBF-4523-B893-4C63ADE9F74D@arin.net>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<54405A25.9020104@quark.net>
	<C838D139-1B09-42F3-8BC5-9C12C8ECDAFA@corp.arin.net>
	<5441570E.4020907@quark.net>
	<F0435188-5BBF-4523-B893-4C63ADE9F74D@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMfXtQxkJoTEfC9oirxt=0VWUoRzQs9Kg+gxHjZ4B1UqTjEJDg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:14 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
...
> Andrew - you don't think that the volunteers should be from the pool of
> people already elected by the ARIN community for AC or ASO AC roles?

While I know we are in the middle of an election,
is there a way to get a "sense" of the AC as to
whether there is likely to be sufficient number
of members that could commit to this (likely)
intense period of additional effort?  If not, we
need to come up with an alternative quickly,
regardless of whether the existing AC would
be the appropriate pool (which I have already
stated I think is the appropriate pool given the
time frame).


From andrew.dul at quark.net  Fri Oct 17 14:43:01 2014
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:43:01 -0700
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <5bc43c5576c743699d58889c97b2efca@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMEFPCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<544045B6.1030207@quark.net>
	<5bc43c5576c743699d58889c97b2efca@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <54416335.1020803@quark.net>

David,

Your assessment that ICANN is focused on names is totally fair and that
the work that ICANN currently does for the numbering community is very
small. 

If we postulate to move the current numbering IANA function to the NRO. 
Then I think we need to make changes to the NRO and those changes would
need to be part of the transition plan.  Questions like... Should the
NRO be incorporated?  If so where?  Does the NRO need a new board, which
is elected?  How is it elected?  How do we ensure that the NRO continues
in the public interest?  What is the future relationship between the
RIRs and the future NRO? 

Those are all questions that would need significant work and thought to
figure out and come up with a plan.  That certainly could be in the long
term benefit of the numbering community, but does it have the downside
of fracturing the Internet community?

The other alternative is the status quo or a variant thereof.  While the
status quo might be the path of least resistance it also has known
issues.  There doesn't seem to be a reason that we couldn't continue
with a variant of the status quo at least for a while and then sometime
in the future make changes.

Andrew





On 10/17/2014 11:08 AM, David Huberman wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> The problem, as I see it, is two-fold:
>
> 1) ICANN isn't focused on addressing.  I just attended their ICANN51 meeting in Los Angeles.  It was thousands of attendees, with barely any engineers present.  The meeting was almost 100% focused on the naming registry game and finding ways to have more meetings. Quite a surprising number of interactions I had this week involved me noting that I run the numbering shop at Microsoft, and the person I was talking to asking what numbering was.
>
> 2) IANA, the function that actually performs the work, is still mostly 1 person: Leo Vegoda.  The job remains primarily focused on:
> - keeping the files up-to-date on which RIR has which numbers
> - watching over the reverse DNS management scripts to ensure they're working
> - periodically giving out new number space ranges to an RIR
>
> This function, again performed primarily by one person, is overseen by an organization with a ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY NINE MILLION DOLLAR BUDGET for FY15.  Wow.  $159mm budget.  It's projecting to run a $18mm net surplus in FY15.   Here's the link to the budget for FY15 that is approved by the Board:  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy15-16sep14-en.pdf
>
> How much of this $159mm will be spent to support the ASO and the IANA function? 
>
> Proposed solution:
> A) The NRO should petition USGOV to take IANA's addressing function away from ICANN, and run it themselves using the monies already paid to ICANN from the RIR membership dollars.
> B) The .arpa TLD needs to move to the NRO.  Then one of the RIRs should step up and take responsibility for its administration.
> C) Any shortfall in operating expenses for either of the above can be covered by the reserve funds that numerous RIRs currently hold. That's a good use of surplus money.
>
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net [mailto:iana-transition-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:25 PM
> To: iana-transition at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>
> While $800k certainly isn't a small amount of money it, I'll postulate that it also isn't a huge amount. 
>
> ICANN does a lot of "stuff" a lot of which isn't related to numbers at all, but it does act as a lightening rod for lots of global issues.  Its possible that an independent NRO would also have to deal with some of those issues.  In that light perhaps we are getting the value out of our relationship with ICANN?  ICANN certainly isn't perfect, but the working relationship between the numbers community and ICANN, while odd, has been highly functional and focused on specific issues where global coordination is necessary.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 10/16/2014 11:35 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
>> Unless I am mistaken, the RIRs are paying something like US $ 800'000 
>> per year to ICANN.
>>
>> I imnagine that the NROs could provide the IANA function for 
>> considerably less than that.
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David Huberman [mailto:David.Huberman at microsoft.com]
>>> Sent: jeudi, 16. octobre 2014 19:36
>>> To: John Curran; rhill at hill-a.ch
>>> Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regardless of any work that would need to be done, I support the idea 
>>> of transitioning the traditional IANA addressing functions to the 
>>> NRO. The IANA was run for decades as one person. The NRO can hire Leo 
>>> Vegoda or someone else to perform that role. Funding can come 
>>> directly from the NRO participants with no fee increase
>>> - just drop the significant money being paid to ICANN today.
>>>
>>> Bottom line for me: ICANN is not the appropriate vehicle for the IANA 
>>> function. We engineers need to take back control of the engineering 
>>> functions of IANA, wresting it away from professional do-nothings and 
>>> lawyers (save our own lawyers, who of course, we love).
>>>
>>> David R Huberman
>>> Microsoft Corporation
>>> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net 
>>> <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of John Curran 
>>> <jcurran at arin.net>
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:06:17 AM
>>> To: rhill at hill-a.ch
>>> Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>>>
>>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the
>>> following things with
>>>> respect to IP addresses:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs 2. Ratifies the policies 
>>>> approved by the RIRs
>>>>
>>>> And, through the IANA function, it does the following:
>>>>
>>>> 3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs 4. Publishes 
>>>> those allocations on its web site
>>>>
>>>> One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO,
>>> which would
>>>> in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those
>>> functions.  Since
>>>> the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that
>>> the members
>>>> of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.
>>> Richard -
>>>
>>> This is certainly possible, but it is worth noting that the NRO is a 
>>> rather lightweight coordination function among the RIRs, allowing the 
>>> RIRs to coordinate on matters such as "whether we'll have an joint 
>>> RIR trade show booth at a given international conference", "can we 
>>> work on one informational brochure on IPv4 runout/IPv6 rather than 
>>> having five", "can we have a single joint number resource statistics report", etc.
>>>
>>> In these cases, each RIR is fulfilling each existing mission and 
>>> operating plans, only coordinating with other RIRs to do so in a more 
>>> efficient and consistent manner.  Ultimately, each RIR acts under its 
>>> own authority on matters which are primarily outreach and operational in nature.
>>>
>>> Expanding the NRO to take on the functions listed could be done, but 
>>> would represent a fairly substantial change in the level of 
>>> responsibility, and may need to be accompanied by both organizational 
>>> changes (e.g. actually incorporating the NRO) and accountability 
>>> changes (e.g. more than simply to the RIR executive directors, as it 
>>> is at present.)
>>>
>>> If this approach were to be promoted, it would be good to have ample 
>>> discussion on this list first, including the aspects noted above.
>>>
>>> /John
>>>
>>> John Curran
>>> President and CEO
>>> ARIN
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Iana-transition mailing list
>>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iana-transition mailing list
>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition




From andrew.dul at quark.net  Fri Oct 17 14:50:15 2014
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:50:15 -0700
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <F0435188-5BBF-4523-B893-4C63ADE9F74D@arin.net>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<54405A25.9020104@quark.net>
	<C838D139-1B09-42F3-8BC5-9C12C8ECDAFA@corp.arin.net>
	<5441570E.4020907@quark.net>
	<F0435188-5BBF-4523-B893-4C63ADE9F74D@arin.net>
Message-ID: <544164E7.3000809@quark.net>

On 10/17/2014 11:14 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>> ...
>> Assuming we go forward with this plan as currently outlined, I'd like to
>> see that those who judge consensus on this team should all be community
>> members.
> Acknowledged.  If no one feels otherwise, I will carry that back as a 
> recommendation for change from this region.  
>
>> ...
>>> This team will have to work on a expedited basis on a topic
>>> which is not number resource policy (that which the NRO NC
>>> representatives were elected for...)  I will note, having 
>>> observed that NRO NC/ASO AC since inception, that it is a 
>>> remarkably diligent council, but is not particularly brisk
>>> due to its fairly rigorous methods.
>> I only suggested that the members of the NRO NC were an appropriate
>> group to judge consensus during this process. I am well aware that the
>> current global policy process is very slow moving.  The members of this
>> team could certainly choose their own method for reviewing and moving
>> forward with this proposal.
> That is one option; we would be in a very bad place if the group could
> not come to agreement on the process to be used.  Given the risk that
> may result (and imputed risk to ARIN's ability to perform its mission),
> I would feel much more comfortable with nearly _any_ process for the 
> team to "review and move forward", so long as it is set in the charter 
> so that the team has certainty in processes and proceed immediately 
> with its consolidation work.
>
> How do other folks feel about this?  (I can convey a desire to strike
> this part from the proposed charter if that is the desire in this region,
> but would suggest that we also have compelling reasoning that we can
> share with the other regions should we propose this change...)
>
>>>> Are there conflicts that the NRO NC would have by performing in this
>>>> role?  Or maybe we need a separate group completely separate from the
>>>> NRO/ASO?  How the members of this team are chosen is important if we
>>>> believe it will be hard to achieve consensus quickly on a submission to
>>>> the ICG. 
>>> How do you believe they should they be chosen in the ARIN region?
>> Given the restrictive timeline, my only suggestion would be to take
>> volunteers from the community and then choose by lot or vote of the AC.
> Andrew - you don't think that the volunteers should be from the pool of 
> people already elected by the ARIN community for AC or ASO AC roles?  I
> am quite concerned with people being selected for this role representing
> the region without the membership having already vetted them for such a
> responsibility...  Do you believe this is a needless concern?
I would expect that volunteers would likely come from those who sit on
the AC or ASO AC, but there are also individuals who don't currently sit
in those chairs that might serve this community very well.  If we aren't
going to use a preexisting body, then I don't think we should exclude
potential valuable contributors as members of the crisp team right from
the top. 

There is always the potential for someone chosen to not represent the
community, but that is a risk with any appointment/election.  Maybe that
is a reason not to draw lots or at least do a round of vetting prior to
drawing lots.

Andrew




From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Oct 17 15:04:35 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 19:04:35 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <CAMfXtQxkJoTEfC9oirxt=0VWUoRzQs9Kg+gxHjZ4B1UqTjEJDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<54405A25.9020104@quark.net>
	<C838D139-1B09-42F3-8BC5-9C12C8ECDAFA@corp.arin.net>
	<5441570E.4020907@quark.net>
	<F0435188-5BBF-4523-B893-4C63ADE9F74D@arin.net>
	<CAMfXtQxkJoTEfC9oirxt=0VWUoRzQs9Kg+gxHjZ4B1UqTjEJDg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52B2776A-0885-4D01-854B-E15470C5FA0E@arin.net>

On Oct 17, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:14 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> ...
>> Andrew - you don't think that the volunteers should be from the pool of
>> people already elected by the ARIN community for AC or ASO AC roles?
> 
> While I know we are in the middle of an election,
> is there a way to get a "sense" of the AC as to
> whether there is likely to be sufficient number
> of members that could commit to this (likely)
> intense period of additional effort?  If not, we
> need to come up with an alternative quickly,
> regardless of whether the existing AC would
> be the appropriate pool (which I have already
> stated I think is the appropriate pool given the
> time frame).

Gary -

I was suggesting the AC and the ASO AC representatives from 
this region as the pool of candidates.  

Even before asking for volunteers, I am confident that there 
are several interested just from those who have approached me.
(Once we're confident on the pool of candidates, I will send 
a formal call to that group/list/whatever.)

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Fri Oct 17 14:51:23 2014
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:51:23 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <54416335.1020803@quark.net>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMEFPCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<544045B6.1030207@quark.net>
	<5bc43c5576c743699d58889c97b2efca@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>,
	<54416335.1020803@quark.net>
Message-ID: <1413571870348.10391@microsoft.com>

Normally I'd agree with you, Andrew.

But ICANN is working behind the scenes to solidify their position.  For example, I'm told
that they want ownership of the IANA trademark and website in perpetuity, in writing
from the IETF.  Those aren't the wishes of an organization that intends to relinquish
control anytime soon.

I think now is the appropriate time to act, while the IANA transition plans are on
the table. 

As for the logistics, we have CEOs and staffs paid hundreds of thousands of dollars
each year to do that.  And lots of lawyers.   Stand something up now, fix it as we go
along as best we can.

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing

________________________________________
From: Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 11:43 AM
To: David Huberman; andrew.dul at quark.net; iana-transition at arin.net
Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?

David,

Your assessment that ICANN is focused on names is totally fair and that
the work that ICANN currently does for the numbering community is very
small.

If we postulate to move the current numbering IANA function to the NRO.
Then I think we need to make changes to the NRO and those changes would
need to be part of the transition plan.  Questions like... Should the
NRO be incorporated?  If so where?  Does the NRO need a new board, which
is elected?  How is it elected?  How do we ensure that the NRO continues
in the public interest?  What is the future relationship between the
RIRs and the future NRO?

Those are all questions that would need significant work and thought to
figure out and come up with a plan.  That certainly could be in the long
term benefit of the numbering community, but does it have the downside
of fracturing the Internet community?

The other alternative is the status quo or a variant thereof.  While the
status quo might be the path of least resistance it also has known
issues.  There doesn't seem to be a reason that we couldn't continue
with a variant of the status quo at least for a while and then sometime
in the future make changes.

Andrew





On 10/17/2014 11:08 AM, David Huberman wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> The problem, as I see it, is two-fold:
>
> 1) ICANN isn't focused on addressing.  I just attended their ICANN51 meeting in Los Angeles.  It was thousands of attendees, with barely any engineers present.  The meeting was almost 100% focused on the naming registry game and finding ways to have more meetings. Quite a surprising number of interactions I had this week involved me noting that I run the numbering shop at Microsoft, and the person I was talking to asking what numbering was.
>
> 2) IANA, the function that actually performs the work, is still mostly 1 person: Leo Vegoda.  The job remains primarily focused on:
> - keeping the files up-to-date on which RIR has which numbers
> - watching over the reverse DNS management scripts to ensure they're working
> - periodically giving out new number space ranges to an RIR
>
> This function, again performed primarily by one person, is overseen by an organization with a ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY NINE MILLION DOLLAR BUDGET for FY15.  Wow.  $159mm budget.  It's projecting to run a $18mm net surplus in FY15.   Here's the link to the budget for FY15 that is approved by the Board:  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy15-16sep14-en.pdf
>
> How much of this $159mm will be spent to support the ASO and the IANA function?
>
> Proposed solution:
> A) The NRO should petition USGOV to take IANA's addressing function away from ICANN, and run it themselves using the monies already paid to ICANN from the RIR membership dollars.
> B) The .arpa TLD needs to move to the NRO.  Then one of the RIRs should step up and take responsibility for its administration.
> C) Any shortfall in operating expenses for either of the above can be covered by the reserve funds that numerous RIRs currently hold. That's a good use of surplus money.
>
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net [mailto:iana-transition-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:25 PM
> To: iana-transition at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>
> While $800k certainly isn't a small amount of money it, I'll postulate that it also isn't a huge amount.
>
> ICANN does a lot of "stuff" a lot of which isn't related to numbers at all, but it does act as a lightening rod for lots of global issues.  Its possible that an independent NRO would also have to deal with some of those issues.  In that light perhaps we are getting the value out of our relationship with ICANN?  ICANN certainly isn't perfect, but the working relationship between the numbers community and ICANN, while odd, has been highly functional and focused on specific issues where global coordination is necessary.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 10/16/2014 11:35 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
>> Unless I am mistaken, the RIRs are paying something like US $ 800'000
>> per year to ICANN.
>>
>> I imnagine that the NROs could provide the IANA function for
>> considerably less than that.
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David Huberman [mailto:David.Huberman at microsoft.com]
>>> Sent: jeudi, 16. octobre 2014 19:36
>>> To: John Curran; rhill at hill-a.ch
>>> Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regardless of any work that would need to be done, I support the idea
>>> of transitioning the traditional IANA addressing functions to the
>>> NRO. The IANA was run for decades as one person. The NRO can hire Leo
>>> Vegoda or someone else to perform that role. Funding can come
>>> directly from the NRO participants with no fee increase
>>> - just drop the significant money being paid to ICANN today.
>>>
>>> Bottom line for me: ICANN is not the appropriate vehicle for the IANA
>>> function. We engineers need to take back control of the engineering
>>> functions of IANA, wresting it away from professional do-nothings and
>>> lawyers (save our own lawyers, who of course, we love).
>>>
>>> David R Huberman
>>> Microsoft Corporation
>>> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net
>>> <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of John Curran
>>> <jcurran at arin.net>
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:06:17 AM
>>> To: rhill at hill-a.ch
>>> Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>>>
>>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the
>>> following things with
>>>> respect to IP addresses:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs 2. Ratifies the policies
>>>> approved by the RIRs
>>>>
>>>> And, through the IANA function, it does the following:
>>>>
>>>> 3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs 4. Publishes
>>>> those allocations on its web site
>>>>
>>>> One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO,
>>> which would
>>>> in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those
>>> functions.  Since
>>>> the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that
>>> the members
>>>> of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.
>>> Richard -
>>>
>>> This is certainly possible, but it is worth noting that the NRO is a
>>> rather lightweight coordination function among the RIRs, allowing the
>>> RIRs to coordinate on matters such as "whether we'll have an joint
>>> RIR trade show booth at a given international conference", "can we
>>> work on one informational brochure on IPv4 runout/IPv6 rather than
>>> having five", "can we have a single joint number resource statistics report", etc.
>>>
>>> In these cases, each RIR is fulfilling each existing mission and
>>> operating plans, only coordinating with other RIRs to do so in a more
>>> efficient and consistent manner.  Ultimately, each RIR acts under its
>>> own authority on matters which are primarily outreach and operational in nature.
>>>
>>> Expanding the NRO to take on the functions listed could be done, but
>>> would represent a fairly substantial change in the level of
>>> responsibility, and may need to be accompanied by both organizational
>>> changes (e.g. actually incorporating the NRO) and accountability
>>> changes (e.g. more than simply to the RIR executive directors, as it
>>> is at present.)
>>>
>>> If this approach were to be promoted, it would be good to have ample
>>> discussion on this list first, including the aspects noted above.
>>>
>>> /John
>>>
>>> John Curran
>>> President and CEO
>>> ARIN
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Iana-transition mailing list
>>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iana-transition mailing list
>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition




From andrew.dul at quark.net  Fri Oct 17 15:07:44 2014
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:07:44 -0700
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <1413571870348.10391@microsoft.com>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMEFPCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<544045B6.1030207@quark.net>
	<5bc43c5576c743699d58889c97b2efca@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>,
	<54416335.1020803@quark.net> <1413571870348.10391@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <54416900.1060903@quark.net>

David,

I'd agree that if we are going to make a change it is much more likely
now than later.  Given that we need a real plan for the NRO.  I'm
guessing that today this community probably favors the status quo vs.
moving the numbers IANA function to the NRO, but it is an idea that has
some members of the community have publicly supported and I think there
is value in considering it as an option.  To make this happen we need a
plan for the NRO.  How do we get that plan?  We could certainly have
throw out some ideas on how that could happen, but I'm certainly not
skilled in the details of the legal aspects that would need to be
considered. 

Andrew

On 10/17/2014 11:51 AM, David Huberman wrote:
> Normally I'd agree with you, Andrew.
>
> But ICANN is working behind the scenes to solidify their position.  For example, I'm told
> that they want ownership of the IANA trademark and website in perpetuity, in writing
> from the IETF.  Those aren't the wishes of an organization that intends to relinquish
> control anytime soon.
>
> I think now is the appropriate time to act, while the IANA transition plans are on
> the table. 
>
> As for the logistics, we have CEOs and staffs paid hundreds of thousands of dollars
> each year to do that.  And lots of lawyers.   Stand something up now, fix it as we go
> along as best we can.
>
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 11:43 AM
> To: David Huberman; andrew.dul at quark.net; iana-transition at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>
> David,
>
> Your assessment that ICANN is focused on names is totally fair and that
> the work that ICANN currently does for the numbering community is very
> small.
>
> If we postulate to move the current numbering IANA function to the NRO.
> Then I think we need to make changes to the NRO and those changes would
> need to be part of the transition plan.  Questions like... Should the
> NRO be incorporated?  If so where?  Does the NRO need a new board, which
> is elected?  How is it elected?  How do we ensure that the NRO continues
> in the public interest?  What is the future relationship between the
> RIRs and the future NRO?
>
> Those are all questions that would need significant work and thought to
> figure out and come up with a plan.  That certainly could be in the long
> term benefit of the numbering community, but does it have the downside
> of fracturing the Internet community?
>
> The other alternative is the status quo or a variant thereof.  While the
> status quo might be the path of least resistance it also has known
> issues.  There doesn't seem to be a reason that we couldn't continue
> with a variant of the status quo at least for a while and then sometime
> in the future make changes.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/17/2014 11:08 AM, David Huberman wrote:
>> Andrew,
>>
>> The problem, as I see it, is two-fold:
>>
>> 1) ICANN isn't focused on addressing.  I just attended their ICANN51 meeting in Los Angeles.  It was thousands of attendees, with barely any engineers present.  The meeting was almost 100% focused on the naming registry game and finding ways to have more meetings. Quite a surprising number of interactions I had this week involved me noting that I run the numbering shop at Microsoft, and the person I was talking to asking what numbering was.
>>
>> 2) IANA, the function that actually performs the work, is still mostly 1 person: Leo Vegoda.  The job remains primarily focused on:
>> - keeping the files up-to-date on which RIR has which numbers
>> - watching over the reverse DNS management scripts to ensure they're working
>> - periodically giving out new number space ranges to an RIR
>>
>> This function, again performed primarily by one person, is overseen by an organization with a ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY NINE MILLION DOLLAR BUDGET for FY15.  Wow.  $159mm budget.  It's projecting to run a $18mm net surplus in FY15.   Here's the link to the budget for FY15 that is approved by the Board:  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy15-16sep14-en.pdf
>>
>> How much of this $159mm will be spent to support the ASO and the IANA function?
>>
>> Proposed solution:
>> A) The NRO should petition USGOV to take IANA's addressing function away from ICANN, and run it themselves using the monies already paid to ICANN from the RIR membership dollars.
>> B) The .arpa TLD needs to move to the NRO.  Then one of the RIRs should step up and take responsibility for its administration.
>> C) Any shortfall in operating expenses for either of the above can be covered by the reserve funds that numerous RIRs currently hold. That's a good use of surplus money.
>>
>> David R Huberman
>> Microsoft Corporation
>> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net [mailto:iana-transition-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
>> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:25 PM
>> To: iana-transition at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>>
>> While $800k certainly isn't a small amount of money it, I'll postulate that it also isn't a huge amount.
>>
>> ICANN does a lot of "stuff" a lot of which isn't related to numbers at all, but it does act as a lightening rod for lots of global issues.  Its possible that an independent NRO would also have to deal with some of those issues.  In that light perhaps we are getting the value out of our relationship with ICANN?  ICANN certainly isn't perfect, but the working relationship between the numbers community and ICANN, while odd, has been highly functional and focused on specific issues where global coordination is necessary.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On 10/16/2014 11:35 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
>>> Unless I am mistaken, the RIRs are paying something like US $ 800'000
>>> per year to ICANN.
>>>
>>> I imnagine that the NROs could provide the IANA function for
>>> considerably less than that.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David Huberman [mailto:David.Huberman at microsoft.com]
>>>> Sent: jeudi, 16. octobre 2014 19:36
>>>> To: John Curran; rhill at hill-a.ch
>>>> Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regardless of any work that would need to be done, I support the idea
>>>> of transitioning the traditional IANA addressing functions to the
>>>> NRO. The IANA was run for decades as one person. The NRO can hire Leo
>>>> Vegoda or someone else to perform that role. Funding can come
>>>> directly from the NRO participants with no fee increase
>>>> - just drop the significant money being paid to ICANN today.
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line for me: ICANN is not the appropriate vehicle for the IANA
>>>> function. We engineers need to take back control of the engineering
>>>> functions of IANA, wresting it away from professional do-nothings and
>>>> lawyers (save our own lawyers, who of course, we love).
>>>>
>>>> David R Huberman
>>>> Microsoft Corporation
>>>> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net
>>>> <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of John Curran
>>>> <jcurran at arin.net>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:06:17 AM
>>>> To: rhill at hill-a.ch
>>>> Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the
>>>> following things with
>>>>> respect to IP addresses:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs 2. Ratifies the policies
>>>>> approved by the RIRs
>>>>>
>>>>> And, through the IANA function, it does the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs 4. Publishes
>>>>> those allocations on its web site
>>>>>
>>>>> One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO,
>>>> which would
>>>>> in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those
>>>> functions.  Since
>>>>> the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that
>>>> the members
>>>>> of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.
>>>> Richard -
>>>>
>>>> This is certainly possible, but it is worth noting that the NRO is a
>>>> rather lightweight coordination function among the RIRs, allowing the
>>>> RIRs to coordinate on matters such as "whether we'll have an joint
>>>> RIR trade show booth at a given international conference", "can we
>>>> work on one informational brochure on IPv4 runout/IPv6 rather than
>>>> having five", "can we have a single joint number resource statistics report", etc.
>>>>
>>>> In these cases, each RIR is fulfilling each existing mission and
>>>> operating plans, only coordinating with other RIRs to do so in a more
>>>> efficient and consistent manner.  Ultimately, each RIR acts under its
>>>> own authority on matters which are primarily outreach and operational in nature.
>>>>
>>>> Expanding the NRO to take on the functions listed could be done, but
>>>> would represent a fairly substantial change in the level of
>>>> responsibility, and may need to be accompanied by both organizational
>>>> changes (e.g. actually incorporating the NRO) and accountability
>>>> changes (e.g. more than simply to the RIR executive directors, as it
>>>> is at present.)
>>>>
>>>> If this approach were to be promoted, it would be good to have ample
>>>> discussion on this list first, including the aspects noted above.
>>>>
>>>> /John
>>>>
>>>> John Curran
>>>> President and CEO
>>>> ARIN
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Iana-transition mailing list
>>>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Iana-transition mailing list
>>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iana-transition mailing list
>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>




From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Oct 17 15:25:05 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 19:25:05 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <1413571870348.10391@microsoft.com>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMEFPCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<544045B6.1030207@quark.net>
	<5bc43c5576c743699d58889c97b2efca@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<,> <54416335.1020803@quark.net> <1413571870348.10391@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <A900CE28-B1B6-43E6-AEC7-3B7901BC364A@corp.arin.net>

On Oct 17, 2014, at 11:51 AM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> Normally I'd agree with you, Andrew.
> 
> But ICANN is working behind the scenes to solidify their position.  For example, I'm told
> that they want ownership of the IANA trademark and website in perpetuity, in writing
> from the IETF.  ...

David - Is there a document to this effect somewhere that we can reference?

> I think now is the appropriate time to act, while the IANA transition plans are on
> the table. 


To be clear, are you advocating that the RIRs obtain clarity in their
right to contract for IANA services for the delegated number spaces,
or that they both obtain such clarity and then perform those services
directly rather than contracting for such?

> As for the logistics, we have CEOs and staffs paid hundreds of thousands of dollars
> each year to do that.  And lots of lawyers.   Stand something up now, fix it as we go
> along as best we can.

That is correct, i.e. if community direction is clear, then making all of 
that happen is something that becomes part of ARIN's plan, and we get it 
done.  Note that I am presently participating in the planning discussions 
for the transition of the stewardship of IANA functions, so as to encourage 
responsible oversight of critical Internet resources and to help clarify 
ICANN?s role in administration of Internet number resources. Given that
direction from the ARIN Board (and in the Strategic Plan), I have been
working on solidifying existing roles (i.e. ICANN as IANA Operator) but
that can be changed if the community comes to consensus on a different 
trajectory.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From popalz79 at gmail.com  Sat Oct 18 13:42:40 2014
From: popalz79 at gmail.com (Aslam Testing)
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:42:40 -0400
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <CAC4yj2Xers5yM0wGZ8SMrQVOrCc23p91K-zjPNb+Up12zESigQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <86dc41fa870648c28489f5031f44abc1@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMEFPCMAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<CAD_dc6gxf_97O_N1tba2S1Ev6K2AifD6NQ89q1r8VqH32mKqXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC4yj2VxCrEjWscD8+Gkia-PyVorqOY0YuReT_JtrsvJSguYbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD_dc6izsXm0d1=K=dXjpYxPQ-9iV_BHzM48n+Q-656CcBpOMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC4yj2Xers5yM0wGZ8SMrQVOrCc23p91K-zjPNb+Up12zESigQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAADTH8foXCNWeYsu5WcaMxFoP4QjxScMKV3_o=+UiHfPsKoBsA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
wrote:

> Sean,
>
> I agree.  it is important that the IANA operators follow are the ones
> generated by the agreement of the 5 RIRs through the GPDP.
>
> I don't see how this IANA oversight transition would in any way affect the
> way policy is created, or the process for providing advice on how that
> policy is implemented by whomever performs the IANA function.
>
> What may be at risk is judging the compliance of the IANA operators in
> adhering to those policies.  I suspect there are some SLA metrics in an
> NTIA/ICANN MoU/SoW/contract document, and that text will be moved into some
> other agreement held be some other entity, who can take some action.  The
> question is in what document should we put that text, and who is the
> agreement between.
>
>
>
It is indeed imperative to have proper accountability framework- with
assigned entity or group  in place that would have the responsibility of
compliance oversight .

Are we also looking into naming organizations (ccNSO, GNSO etc) as part of
the IANA transition or that will be under different organization ?

Thanks

-Aslam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141018/81c1f3ae/attachment.html>

From ajs at anvilwalrusden.com  Sun Oct 19 02:13:32 2014
From: ajs at anvilwalrusden.com (Andrew Sullivan)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 02:13:32 -0400
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <1413571870348.10391@microsoft.com>
	<5bc43c5576c743699d58889c97b2efca@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20141019061331.GC29144@crankycanuck.ca>

Dear colleagues,

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 06:08:04PM +0000, David Huberman wrote:
> B) The .arpa TLD needs to move to the NRO.  Then one of the RIRs should step up and take responsibility for its administration.

Last I checked (and a quick whois --
e.g. http://www.iana.org/whois?q=arpa -- makes me feel more confident
of this), arpa. was not something that is strictly under ICANN's
control.  Moreover, not everything in arpa. is related to numbering.
Perhaps David Huberman's is a suggestion that in-addr.arpa. and
ip6.arpa. need to move to NRO control?  That would be
less-eoncompassing than all of arpa.

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 06:51:23PM +0000, David Huberman wrote:
> 
> But ICANN is working behind the scenes to solidify their position.  For example, I'm told
> that they want ownership of the IANA trademark and website in perpetuity, in writing
> from the IETF.  

As nearly as I can tell, neither of those desires (which I've not
heard expressed, FWIW) are things the IETF could satisfy anyway.  As I
understand it, there is a trademark in "IANA" held by ICANN
(http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:omznph.2.11).
And ICANN is also the registrant and admin contact of iana.org (a
simple whois query will reveal as much).  So, the IETF (and for that
matter the IAB) has no existing claim on either of those bits of
"intellectual property", unless one is asserting that there is some
such claim outside the existing contractual arrangements or legal
registrations.

It is my personal (I emphasise personal) opinion that nothing in the
current discussion should disturb existing facts unless that
disturbance could be different without the NTIA's involvement in the
arrangements.  In the case of the things under discussion, NTIA
disappearing would not alter the control, and therefore I'm not sure
what you want.  Anyway, ICANN doesn't need IETF's opinion in this
case: they own the trademark and hold the domain registration.

IANAL.  And this is my personal opinion, and not one of a member of
any body I can name.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com



From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Sun Oct 19 07:23:26 2014
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 11:23:26 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <20141019061331.GC29144@crankycanuck.ca>
References: <1413571870348.10391@microsoft.com>
	<5bc43c5576c743699d58889c97b2efca@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>,
	<20141019061331.GC29144@crankycanuck.ca>
Message-ID: <1413717806386.66793@microsoft.com>

Andrew,

ICANN operates .arpa, one of the few (two?) TLDs they operate.  If the NRO were to perform the addressing functions currently performed by IANA, I do not think it would be appropriate for ICANN to operate the .arpa TLD.   Why do I think that?  

Reverse DNS and RPKI are the two functions RIRs perform which are operationally relevant on a second-by-second basis.  Properly functioning delegation within ip6.arpa and in-addr.arpa are crucial to rDNS's success.   I think this critical TLD should be operated by engineering organizations, and not an organization that exists solely for lawyers and professional meeting-goers, 99% of whom have no idea what .arpa is and how it works.[1]

Speaking only as an engineer (and as an especially clueful DNS engineer) don't you agree?  When you attend ICANN meetings, do you get the sense the attendees and participants have the internet's engineering's best interests in the forefront of their mind when they're "governing"?  John Crain won't be there forever to protect us, after all.

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing

________________________________________
From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 11:13 PM
To: iana-transition at arin.net
Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?

Dear colleagues,

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 06:08:04PM +0000, David Huberman wrote:
> B) The .arpa TLD needs to move to the NRO.  Then one of the RIRs should step up and take responsibility for its administration.

Last I checked (and a quick whois --
e.g. http://www.iana.org/whois?q=arpa -- makes me feel more confident
of this), arpa. was not something that is strictly under ICANN's
control.  Moreover, not everything in arpa. is related to numbering.
Perhaps David Huberman's is a suggestion that in-addr.arpa. and
ip6.arpa. need to move to NRO control?  That would be
less-eoncompassing than all of arpa.

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 06:51:23PM +0000, David Huberman wrote:
>
> But ICANN is working behind the scenes to solidify their position.  For example, I'm told
> that they want ownership of the IANA trademark and website in perpetuity, in writing
> from the IETF.

As nearly as I can tell, neither of those desires (which I've not
heard expressed, FWIW) are things the IETF could satisfy anyway.  As I
understand it, there is a trademark in "IANA" held by ICANN
(http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:omznph.2.11).
And ICANN is also the registrant and admin contact of iana.org (a
simple whois query will reveal as much).  So, the IETF (and for that
matter the IAB) has no existing claim on either of those bits of
"intellectual property", unless one is asserting that there is some
such claim outside the existing contractual arrangements or legal
registrations.

It is my personal (I emphasise personal) opinion that nothing in the
current discussion should disturb existing facts unless that
disturbance could be different without the NTIA's involvement in the
arrangements.  In the case of the things under discussion, NTIA
disappearing would not alter the control, and therefore I'm not sure
what you want.  Anyway, ICANN doesn't need IETF's opinion in this
case: they own the trademark and hold the domain registration.

IANAL.  And this is my personal opinion, and not one of a member of
any body I can name.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

_______________________________________________
Iana-transition mailing list
Iana-transition at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition


From tbiehn at gmail.com  Sun Oct 19 12:55:46 2014
From: tbiehn at gmail.com (Travis Biehn)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:55:46 -0400
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <1413717806386.66793@microsoft.com>
References: <1413571870348.10391@microsoft.com>
	<5bc43c5576c743699d58889c97b2efca@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<20141019061331.GC29144@crankycanuck.ca>
	<1413717806386.66793@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <CAKtE3zdVeLnm38xO-4jad4qi9y49aDVpVYdkhTmXzkbEWACTBg@mail.gmail.com>

David,
I concur with the sentiment. Eliminate the tithe to ICANN if possible.
Transition functionality as close to RIRs as possible. This further
decentralizes the RIRs and discourages one jurisdictional entity from
having yet another central squeeze point.

As far as 'incorporation' of another legal entity, I don't see where that
is necessary when all participating RIRs can simply contract with one
another. Of course this would simply duplicate the
jurisdictional/administrative chokepoint and reintroduce overhead into the
process. Could you see all the RIRs agreeing on what country to incorporate
the NRO in?

Of course this silliness may be too experimental for the ICG or various
proposal middlemen...

Increasingly it looks like the sentiment is to retain the status quo, which
'by design' seems to be the easiest path.

Travis
On Oct 19, 2014 7:23 AM, "David Huberman" <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> ICANN operates .arpa, one of the few (two?) TLDs they operate.  If the NRO
> were to perform the addressing functions currently performed by IANA, I do
> not think it would be appropriate for ICANN to operate the .arpa TLD.   Why
> do I think that?
>
> Reverse DNS and RPKI are the two functions RIRs perform which are
> operationally relevant on a second-by-second basis.  Properly functioning
> delegation within ip6.arpa and in-addr.arpa are crucial to rDNS's success.
>  I think this critical TLD should be operated by engineering organizations,
> and not an organization that exists solely for lawyers and professional
> meeting-goers, 99% of whom have no idea what .arpa is and how it works.[1]
>
> Speaking only as an engineer (and as an especially clueful DNS engineer)
> don't you agree?  When you attend ICANN meetings, do you get the sense the
> attendees and participants have the internet's engineering's best interests
> in the forefront of their mind when they're "governing"?  John Crain won't
> be there forever to protect us, after all.
>
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>
> ________________________________________
> From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net>
> on behalf of Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 11:13 PM
> To: iana-transition at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 06:08:04PM +0000, David Huberman wrote:
> > B) The .arpa TLD needs to move to the NRO.  Then one of the RIRs should
> step up and take responsibility for its administration.
>
> Last I checked (and a quick whois --
> e.g. http://www.iana.org/whois?q=arpa -- makes me feel more confident
> of this), arpa. was not something that is strictly under ICANN's
> control.  Moreover, not everything in arpa. is related to numbering.
> Perhaps David Huberman's is a suggestion that in-addr.arpa. and
> ip6.arpa. need to move to NRO control?  That would be
> less-eoncompassing than all of arpa.
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 06:51:23PM +0000, David Huberman wrote:
> >
> > But ICANN is working behind the scenes to solidify their position.  For
> example, I'm told
> > that they want ownership of the IANA trademark and website in
> perpetuity, in writing
> > from the IETF.
>
> As nearly as I can tell, neither of those desires (which I've not
> heard expressed, FWIW) are things the IETF could satisfy anyway.  As I
> understand it, there is a trademark in "IANA" held by ICANN
> (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:omznph.2.11).
> And ICANN is also the registrant and admin contact of iana.org (a
> simple whois query will reveal as much).  So, the IETF (and for that
> matter the IAB) has no existing claim on either of those bits of
> "intellectual property", unless one is asserting that there is some
> such claim outside the existing contractual arrangements or legal
> registrations.
>
> It is my personal (I emphasise personal) opinion that nothing in the
> current discussion should disturb existing facts unless that
> disturbance could be different without the NTIA's involvement in the
> arrangements.  In the case of the things under discussion, NTIA
> disappearing would not alter the control, and therefore I'm not sure
> what you want.  Anyway, ICANN doesn't need IETF's opinion in this
> case: they own the trademark and hold the domain registration.
>
> IANAL.  And this is my personal opinion, and not one of a member of
> any body I can name.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141019/0a5cd46c/attachment.html>

From ajs at anvilwalrusden.com  Sun Oct 19 22:40:28 2014
From: ajs at anvilwalrusden.com (Andrew Sullivan)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 22:40:28 -0400
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <1413717806386.66793@microsoft.com>
References: <1413571870348.10391@microsoft.com>
	<5bc43c5576c743699d58889c97b2efca@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<20141019061331.GC29144@crankycanuck.ca>
	<1413717806386.66793@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <20141020024028.GD29144@mx1.yitter.info>

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:23:26AM +0000, David Huberman wrote:
> Andrew,
> 
> ICANN operates .arpa, one of the few (two?) TLDs they operate.

Really?  I think if you examine http://www.iana.org/domains/arpa, you
will discover that the operation is a little different than you seem
to be describing.  I think that, if we are proposing changes to
contractual terms, we ought to attend to the details.

IANA acts as the registry for the arpa. zone.  It does this under the
guidance of the IAB.  The management guidelines are in RFC 3172.

IANA does not operate the name servers for the arpa zone, because if
you check the NS set for arpa., you will learn that arpa. is delegated
to the root name servers.

The in-addr.arpa. and ip6.arpa. zones, however, may fall under the
concerns you are raising.

>  If the NRO were to perform the addressing functions currently performed by IANA, I do not think it would be appropriate for ICANN to operate the .arpa TLD.   Why do I think that?  
> 

It seems to me that you're arguing about this on the wrong list, then,
because the control over the arpa. zone lies with the IAB, and not the
RIRs.  (This seems clear to me from the NTIA-ICANN agreement.)  So if
you want the IETF to do something, you should probably make that
argument on the IETF ianaplan WG list.

> Speaking only as an engineer (and as an especially clueful DNS engineer) don't you agree?  When you attend ICANN meetings, do you get the sense the attendees and participants have the internet's engineering's best interests in the forefront of their mind when they're "governing"?  

I think that different people involved in operating different parts of
the Internet infrastructure, including those who make policy for root
zone delegation, have different ideas of what is important and what is
not.  I agree with you that not everyone at an ICANN meeting has the
sort of clue about DNS operations that, in an ideal world, would be
desirable.  On the other hand, I have remarkably little clue about
political sensitivities in what is sometimes called the global South.
Yet those factors are also important for the global Internet, and
dismissing the whole of ICANN as a collection of either venal or
clueless people doesn't really contribute much to a successful
transition from the NTIA.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com


From ajs at anvilwalrusden.com  Sun Oct 19 22:43:03 2014
From: ajs at anvilwalrusden.com (Andrew Sullivan)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 22:43:03 -0400
Subject: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?
In-Reply-To: <CAKtE3zdVeLnm38xO-4jad4qi9y49aDVpVYdkhTmXzkbEWACTBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1413571870348.10391@microsoft.com>
	<5bc43c5576c743699d58889c97b2efca@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<20141019061331.GC29144@crankycanuck.ca>
	<1413717806386.66793@microsoft.com>
	<CAKtE3zdVeLnm38xO-4jad4qi9y49aDVpVYdkhTmXzkbEWACTBg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20141020024303.GE29144@mx1.yitter.info>

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:55:46PM -0400, Travis Biehn wrote:
> process. Could you see all the RIRs agreeing on what country to incorporate
> the NRO in?

I think that is an important observation that should also awaken us to
the positive good that comes from having ICANN already existing.  Many
people who want to throw the whole thing over seem not to realise
that, if we didn't have ICANN, we'd have to re-invent it.  We might do
a better job, but I've been involved in enough software rewrites to
know that we might just as easily either do worse or no better, but at
great cost of time and money.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com


From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Oct 21 10:15:14 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:15:14 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <F0435188-5BBF-4523-B893-4C63ADE9F74D@arin.net>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<54405A25.9020104@quark.net>
	<C838D139-1B09-42F3-8BC5-9C12C8ECDAFA@corp.arin.net>
	<5441570E.4020907@quark.net>
	<F0435188-5BBF-4523-B893-4C63ADE9F74D@arin.net>
Message-ID: <2DC25ADE-A092-42AD-8168-537F319BF8A1@arin.net>

On Oct 17, 2014, at 2:14 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> On Oct 17, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>> ...
>> Assuming we go forward with this plan as currently outlined, I'd like to
>> see that those who judge consensus on this team should all be community
>> members.
> 
> Acknowledged.  If no one feels otherwise, I will carry that back as a 
> recommendation for change from this region. 

As noted above, I reported back (to the NRO-EC on 18 October) the consensus
from this community that the voting members of the CRISP team should all be 
community members (i.e. non-staff).  I believe that an updated proposal that
incorporates this recommendation will be forthcoming.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Tue Oct 21 10:16:51 2014
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:16:51 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <2DC25ADE-A092-42AD-8168-537F319BF8A1@arin.net>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<54405A25.9020104@quark.net>
	<C838D139-1B09-42F3-8BC5-9C12C8ECDAFA@corp.arin.net>
	<5441570E.4020907@quark.net>
	<F0435188-5BBF-4523-B893-4C63ADE9F74D@arin.net>,
	<2DC25ADE-A092-42AD-8168-537F319BF8A1@arin.net>
Message-ID: <1413901028265.34535@microsoft.com>

Thank you, John.

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing

________________________________________
From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 7:15 AM
To: andrew.dul at quark.net
Cc: Iana-transition at arin.net
Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR regional inputs into single ICG response

On Oct 17, 2014, at 2:14 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>
> On Oct 17, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>> ...
>> Assuming we go forward with this plan as currently outlined, I'd like to
>> see that those who judge consensus on this team should all be community
>> members.
>
> Acknowledged.  If no one feels otherwise, I will carry that back as a
> recommendation for change from this region.

As noted above, I reported back (to the NRO-EC on 18 October) the consensus
from this community that the voting members of the CRISP team should all be
community members (i.e. non-staff).  I believe that an updated proposal that
incorporates this recommendation will be forthcoming.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

_______________________________________________
Iana-transition mailing list
Iana-transition at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition


From info at arin.net  Tue Oct 21 15:12:21 2014
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:12:21 -0400
Subject: [Iana-transition] =?windows-1252?q?ARIN=92s_IANA_Stewardship_Tran?=
 =?windows-1252?q?sition_Survey_Closed?=
Message-ID: <5446B015.9070309@arin.net>

Thank you to everyone who completed the IANA Stewardship Transition
survey. We are now in the process of compiling a summary report of the
responses, which will be published for community review by 24 October 2014.

To learn more about the ongoing IANA Stewardship Transition planning
process, please visit:
http://teamarin.net/education/internet-governance/iana-transition/


Regards,

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)




From info at arin.net  Fri Oct 24 15:24:25 2014
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:24:25 -0400
Subject: [Iana-transition] Results of IANA Stewardship Transition Survey Now
	Available
Message-ID: <544AA769.8010200@arin.net>

 From 13 - 20 October, ARIN conducted an open community survey on the 
IANA Stewardship Transition. The summary report is now available at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/iana_survey.pdf


Regards,

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)




From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Oct 24 16:40:42 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 20:40:42 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] Results of IANA Stewardship Transition Survey Now
	Available
References: <544AA778.2000801@arin.net>
Message-ID: <A2B879F1-B5C8-4EF1-9EC3-BDE69A4E575D@corp.arin.net>

ARIN conducted an open community survey on the IANA Stewardship Transition from 13 - 20 October 2014.

The summary report is now available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/iana_survey.pdf

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141024/725d397a/attachment.html>

From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Oct 24 17:20:20 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:20:20 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR
 regional inputs into single ICG response
In-Reply-To: <2DC25ADE-A092-42AD-8168-537F319BF8A1@arin.net>
References: <4DF3DE65-6517-4FB9-8145-FF0CF910F1C3@corp.arin.net>
	<54405A25.9020104@quark.net>
	<C838D139-1B09-42F3-8BC5-9C12C8ECDAFA@corp.arin.net>
	<5441570E.4020907@quark.net>
	<F0435188-5BBF-4523-B893-4C63ADE9F74D@arin.net>
	<2DC25ADE-A092-42AD-8168-537F319BF8A1@arin.net>
Message-ID: <B087F233-2674-443D-A306-B5239EF8FB3E@arin.net>

On Oct 21, 2014, at 10:15 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> As noted above, I reported back (to the NRO-EC on 18 October) the consensus
> from this community that the voting members of the CRISP team should all be 
> community members (i.e. non-staff).  I believe that an updated proposal that
> incorporates this recommendation will be forthcoming.

There is an updated CRISP proposal is now available on the NRO-EC website -
<https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team-crisp-team>

Changes include the voting community/non-voting staff distinction, a deadline 
of November 15th for appointments by each RIR, and allowing approval of outcomes 
by 8 out of 10 voting members (if rough consensus cannot be readily achieved)

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN






From andrew.dul at quark.net  Fri Oct 24 20:14:24 2014
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:14:24 -0700
Subject: [Iana-transition] Results of IANA Stewardship Transition Survey
 Now Available
In-Reply-To: <544AA769.8010200@arin.net>
References: <544AA769.8010200@arin.net>
Message-ID: <544AEB60.8080907@quark.net>

On 10/24/2014 12:24 PM, ARIN wrote:
> From 13 - 20 October, ARIN conducted an open community survey on the
> IANA Stewardship Transition. The summary report is now available at:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/iana_survey.pdf
>
Did the last comment, on page 7, get truncated in the report or was the
comment incomplete on the survey?

Thanks,
Andrew


From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Oct 24 20:22:32 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 00:22:32 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] Results of IANA Stewardship Transition Survey
 Now Available
In-Reply-To: <544AEB60.8080907@quark.net>
References: <544AA769.8010200@arin.net>,<544AEB60.8080907@quark.net>
Message-ID: <59E15097-E1E3-447A-81A6-21D007FAA228@arin.net>

> On Oct 24, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/24/2014 12:24 PM, ARIN wrote:
>> From 13 - 20 October, ARIN conducted an open community survey on the
>> IANA Stewardship Transition. The summary report is now available at:
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/iana_survey.pdf
> Did the last comment, on page 7, get truncated in the report or was the
> comment incomplete on the survey?

Andrew -

Excellent catch - that was appears truncated in formatting; 
we'll get it corrected asap.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


From jcurran at arin.net  Sat Oct 25 10:28:44 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:28:44 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] ARIN is seeking volunteers to serve as regional
 representatives to the CRISP team
Message-ID: <0524C040-CAB2-42FD-8023-6A194CF7940B@arin.net>

Folks -

ARIN is seeking volunteers to join the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team
as representatives of the ARIN region.  The CRISP team will be responsible for producing the IANA
Stewardship transition proposal from the Number Community by 15 January 2015.

For background and details of the CRISP Team, please see the NRO website:

    <http://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team>

For background on the IANA Stewardship Transition planning process, please refer to the website
of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) -

    <http://ianacg.org>

Each RIR region will appoint 3 members to the CRISP Team, including two volunteer community
representatives and one RIR staff member.   Community members who are interested in serving
on the CRISP team should notify me <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> by 31 October 2014.  After that date,
the list of those who volunteered will be published to the iana-transition at arin.net<mailto:iana-transition at arin.net> mailing list and
the ARIN Board of Trustees will appoint 2 volunteers from the list to serve on the CRISP team.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141025/c9bc3a98/attachment.html>

From jcurran at arin.net  Sat Oct 25 11:39:34 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 15:39:34 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] Results of IANA Stewardship Transition Survey
 Now Available
In-Reply-To: <59E15097-E1E3-447A-81A6-21D007FAA228@arin.net>
References: <544AA769.8010200@arin.net> <,<544AEB60.8080907@quark.net> <>>
	<59E15097-E1E3-447A-81A6-21D007FAA228@arin.net>
Message-ID: <105894C2-E5B2-4085-8E5E-FE02A878B8D7@arin.net>

On Oct 24, 2014, at 8:22 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 24, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 10/24/2014 12:24 PM, ARIN wrote:
>>> From 13 - 20 October, ARIN conducted an open community survey on the
>>> IANA Stewardship Transition. The summary report is now available at:
>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/iana_survey.pdf
>> Did the last comment, on page 7, get truncated in the report or was the
>> comment incomplete on the survey?
> 
> Andrew -
> 
> Excellent catch - that was appears truncated in formatting; 
> we'll get it corrected asap.

Andrew -

We've checked against the data from the survey and it was incomplete 
as entered - i.e. the summary report fully reflects the entry made.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Oct 28 18:05:34 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 22:05:34 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] Reminder - ARIN is seeking volunteers to serve as
 regional representatives to the CRISP team
Message-ID: <60A4E6F5-65A8-49A6-B4CC-6618080FBF6A@arin.net>

Participants on the IANA-Transition at arin.net<mailto:IANA-Transition at arin.net> mailing list -

   Reminder - we are seeking volunteers to serve as regional representatives to the
   CRISP team.     Please let me know as soon as possible if you are interested.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>>
Date: Saturday, October 25, 2014 at 10:06 AM
To: "arin-consult at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>" <arin-consult at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>>
Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN is seeking volunteers to serve as regional representatives to the CRISP team

Folks -

Folks -

ARIN is seeking volunteers to join the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team
as representatives of the ARIN region.  The CRISP team will be responsible for producing the IANA
Stewardship transition proposal from the Number Community by 15 January 2015.

For background and details of the CRISP Team, please see the NRO website:

    <http://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team>

For background on the IANA Stewardship Transition planning process, please refer to the website
of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) -

    <http://ianacg.org<http://ianacg.org/>>

Each RIR region will appoint 3 members to the CRISP Team, including two volunteer community
representatives and one RIR staff member.   Community members who are interested in serving
on the CRISP team should notify me <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> by 31 October 2014.  After that date,
the list of those who volunteered will be published to the iana-transition at arin.net<mailto:iana-transition at arin.net> mailing list and
the ARIN Board of Trustees will appoint 2 volunteers from the list to serve on the CRISP team.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141028/8766fa10/attachment.html>

From andrew.dul at quark.net  Wed Oct 29 11:40:02 2014
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:40:02 -0600
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update, ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
Message-ID: <a8a9fd470fc1dfbfce842e8fbc5524af@quark.net>

Hello

I am currently at the LACNIC meeting and we just had the discussion of 
ideas & proposals surrounding the IANA transition.  A new set of ideas 
has been presented here for discussion in this region.  The idea of a 
new oversight board (MONC) to perform the NTIA oversight function.

I bring it up here so that you can be aware of it and so that we can 
discuss the idea in our region as well.

Below are links to the slides and agenda which are in spanish.

A few personal notes from the presentation and the discussion.

Proposal for a Multistakeholder Oversight Numbers Council (MONC)

Permanent body that would support the NRO, would meet once per year to 
supervise the development & oversight of IANA functions, similar to the 
sitting fiscal committee of lacnic.

It was suggested that oversight role should be done by this body for the 
numbers portion of the IANA functions.  Members of the Council would 
have to be selected or appointed to fulfill this role.  How that would 
happen is not part of this initial idea draft.

One thing that was noted here is that this is a new idea and that it 
should be given time for discussion to see if it has merits.  There 
aren't a lot of details on the structure here at this time, but they 
should come with time.

Andrew


http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/eventos/lacnic22-agenda-detallada

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/HBIR5OaMLUQIPZlmgHtCeLpQG4WO9cUjB83vUDPqMtNPuhGbNSNlJ2aVvUpiNdQM?dl=1







From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Oct 29 12:24:50 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:24:50 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
 ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <a8a9fd470fc1dfbfce842e8fbc5524af@quark.net>
References: <a8a9fd470fc1dfbfce842e8fbc5524af@quark.net>
Message-ID: <CA6FC958-BCA9-4B4B-96E3-D33C86852492@arin.net>

On Oct 29, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> I am currently at the LACNIC meeting and we just had the discussion of ideas & proposals surrounding the IANA transition.  A new set of ideas has been presented here for discussion in this region.  The idea of a new oversight board (MONC) to perform the NTIA oversight function.
> 
> I bring it up here so that you can be aware of it and so that we can discuss the idea in our region as well.

Indeed - it makes perfect sense to start discussion as soon as possible.

> Below are links to the slides and agenda which are in spanish.

Could you compare the MONC concepts to the outcome of the recent IANA 
transition survey in this region?

Thanks!
/John

John Curran 
President and CEO
ARIN

From andrew.dul at quark.net  Wed Oct 29 13:24:31 2014
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:24:31 -0600
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
 ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <CA6FC958-BCA9-4B4B-96E3-D33C86852492@arin.net>
References: <a8a9fd470fc1dfbfce842e8fbc5524af@quark.net>
	<CA6FC958-BCA9-4B4B-96E3-D33C86852492@arin.net>
Message-ID: <bc4bdfd4f4e59f254ec750b425605ca3@quark.net>

On 2014-10-29 10:24, John Curran wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>> I am currently at the LACNIC meeting and we just had the discussion of 
>> ideas & proposals surrounding the IANA transition.  A new set of ideas 
>> has been presented here for discussion in this region.  The idea of a 
>> new oversight board (MONC) to perform the NTIA oversight function.
>> 
>> I bring it up here so that you can be aware of it and so that we can 
>> discuss the idea in our region as well.
> 
> Indeed - it makes perfect sense to start discussion as soon as 
> possible.
> 
>> Below are links to the slides and agenda which are in spanish.
> 
> Could you compare the MONC concepts to the outcome of the recent IANA
> transition survey in this region?
> 

The only parallel I would draw is that Q3 of the survey noted that a 
majority believed that there is a need for an oversight function to 
replace the NTIA's role.  The MONC concept has the possibility to 
fulfill this role for number resources.

Andrew


From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Wed Oct 29 13:30:17 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:30:17 +0100
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
	ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <a8a9fd470fc1dfbfce842e8fbc5524af@quark.net>
References: <a8a9fd470fc1dfbfce842e8fbc5524af@quark.net>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6hwKYVsiNqm7iQzofLKzrXSivsENOK=nkTQaN_97Gm0fw@mail.gmail.com>

Maybe it's helpful to know what oversight activities is performed by NTIA
at it relates to numbers(if any). That would perhaps help understand the
scope of work of the MONC. Then the other question of what will the role of
NRO look like and what's the formation of the MONC going to look like.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 29 Oct 2014 16:40, "Andrew Dul" <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:

> Hello
>
> I am currently at the LACNIC meeting and we just had the discussion of
> ideas & proposals surrounding the IANA transition.  A new set of ideas has
> been presented here for discussion in this region.  The idea of a new
> oversight board (MONC) to perform the NTIA oversight function.
>
> I bring it up here so that you can be aware of it and so that we can
> discuss the idea in our region as well.
>
> Below are links to the slides and agenda which are in spanish.
>
> A few personal notes from the presentation and the discussion.
>
> Proposal for a Multistakeholder Oversight Numbers Council (MONC)
>
> Permanent body that would support the NRO, would meet once per year to
> supervise the development & oversight of IANA functions, similar to the
> sitting fiscal committee of lacnic.
>
> It was suggested that oversight role should be done by this body for the
> numbers portion of the IANA functions.  Members of the Council would have
> to be selected or appointed to fulfill this role.  How that would happen is
> not part of this initial idea draft.
>
> One thing that was noted here is that this is a new idea and that it
> should be given time for discussion to see if it has merits.  There aren't
> a lot of details on the structure here at this time, but they should come
> with time.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/eventos/lacnic22-agenda-detallada
>
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/
> HBIR5OaMLUQIPZlmgHtCeLpQG4WO9cUjB83vUDPqMtNPuhGbNSNlJ2aVvUpiNdQM?dl=1
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141029/77ccd562/attachment.html>

From rhill at hill-a.ch  Wed Oct 29 13:36:07 2014
From: rhill at hill-a.ch (Richard Hill)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:36:07 +0100
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
	ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6hwKYVsiNqm7iQzofLKzrXSivsENOK=nkTQaN_97Gm0fw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a8a9fd470fc1dfbfce842e8fbc5524af@quark.net>
	<CAD_dc6hwKYVsiNqm7iQzofLKzrXSivsENOK=nkTQaN_97Gm0fw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8a696eae-0c3c-4128-b3c7-fcecdaa0f2ac@email.android.com>

NTIA awards the IANA contract, that is, it decides who performs the IANA function, and how. 

Presumably the MONC would do that (for the IP address part of the IANA function) instead of NTIA.

But you are right to ask for a more detailed explanation: the devil is in the details. 

Best Richard

On October 29, 2014 6:30:17 PM CET, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>Maybe it's helpful to know what oversight activities is performed by
>NTIA
>at it relates to numbers(if any). That would perhaps help understand
>the
>scope of work of the MONC. Then the other question of what will the
>role of
>NRO look like and what's the formation of the MONC going to look like.
>
>Cheers!
>
>sent from Google nexus 4
>kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>On 29 Oct 2014 16:40, "Andrew Dul" <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> I am currently at the LACNIC meeting and we just had the discussion
>of
>> ideas & proposals surrounding the IANA transition.  A new set of
>ideas has
>> been presented here for discussion in this region.  The idea of a new
>> oversight board (MONC) to perform the NTIA oversight function.
>>
>> I bring it up here so that you can be aware of it and so that we can
>> discuss the idea in our region as well.
>>
>> Below are links to the slides and agenda which are in spanish.
>>
>> A few personal notes from the presentation and the discussion.
>>
>> Proposal for a Multistakeholder Oversight Numbers Council (MONC)
>>
>> Permanent body that would support the NRO, would meet once per year
>to
>> supervise the development & oversight of IANA functions, similar to
>the
>> sitting fiscal committee of lacnic.
>>
>> It was suggested that oversight role should be done by this body for
>the
>> numbers portion of the IANA functions.  Members of the Council would
>have
>> to be selected or appointed to fulfill this role.  How that would
>happen is
>> not part of this initial idea draft.
>>
>> One thing that was noted here is that this is a new idea and that it
>> should be given time for discussion to see if it has merits.  There
>aren't
>> a lot of details on the structure here at this time, but they should
>come
>> with time.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/eventos/lacnic22-agenda-detallada
>>
>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/
>> HBIR5OaMLUQIPZlmgHtCeLpQG4WO9cUjB83vUDPqMtNPuhGbNSNlJ2aVvUpiNdQM?dl=1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iana-transition mailing list
>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Iana-transition mailing list
>Iana-transition at arin.net
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141029/3850595e/attachment.html>

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Wed Oct 29 15:55:58 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 20:55:58 +0100
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
	ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <8a696eae-0c3c-4128-b3c7-fcecdaa0f2ac@email.android.com>
References: <a8a9fd470fc1dfbfce842e8fbc5524af@quark.net>
	<CAD_dc6hwKYVsiNqm7iQzofLKzrXSivsENOK=nkTQaN_97Gm0fw@mail.gmail.com>
	<8a696eae-0c3c-4128-b3c7-fcecdaa0f2ac@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6hQJyT0Pbbd0DtJieJW=3ikNJS5NQeuK-+3TTu-5ENuVQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

> NTIA awards the IANA contract, that is, it decides who performs the IANA
> function, and how.
>
> Presumably the MONC would do that (for the IP address part of the IANA
> function) instead of NTIA.
>

Thanks for echoing that fact. We then need to determine whether its worth
forming a council that will only be awarding a periodic contract. IMO if
this community decide that a contracting regime is what is desired[1] then
that role can be given to the NRO while the composition of NRO-EC is
reviewed.

>
> But you are right to ask for a more detailed explanation: the devil is in
> the details.
>

;)

Cheers!
1. Which i don't necessarily think is necessary

>
> Best Richard
>
>
> On October 29, 2014 6:30:17 PM CET, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe it's helpful to know what oversight activities is performed by NTIA
>> at it relates to numbers(if any). That would perhaps help understand the
>> scope of work of the MONC. Then the other question of what will the role of
>> NRO look like and what's the formation of the MONC going to look like.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> On 29 Oct 2014 16:40, "Andrew Dul" <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> I am currently at the LACNIC meeting and we just had the discussion of
>>> ideas & proposals surrounding the IANA transition.  A new set of ideas has
>>> been presented here for discussion in this region.  The idea of a new
>>> oversight board (MONC) to perform the NTIA oversight function.
>>>
>>> I bring it up here so that you can be aware of it and so that we can
>>> discuss the idea in our region as well.
>>>
>>> Below are links to the slides and agenda which are in spanish.
>>>
>>> A few personal notes from the presentation and the discussion.
>>>
>>> Proposal for a Multistakeholder Oversight Numbers Council (MONC)
>>>
>>> Permanent body that would support the NRO, would meet once per year to
>>> supervise the development & oversight of IANA functions, similar to the
>>> sitting fiscal committee of lacnic.
>>>
>>> It was suggested that oversight role should be done by this body for the
>>> numbers portion of the IANA functions.  Members of the Council would have
>>> to be selected or appointed to fulfill this role.  How that would happen is
>>> not part of this initial idea draft.
>>>
>>> One thing that was noted here is that this is a new idea and that it
>>> should be given time for discussion to see if it has merits.  There aren't
>>> a lot of details on the structure here at this time, but they should come
>>> with time.
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/eventos/lacnic22-agenda-detallada
>>>
>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/
>>> HBIR5OaMLUQIPZlmgHtCeLpQG4WO9cUjB83vUDPqMtNPuhGbNSNlJ2aVvUpiNdQM?dl=1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Iana-transition mailing list
>>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Iana-transition mailing list
>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>
>>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141029/a4f3bb5b/attachment.html>

From rhill at hill-a.ch  Thu Oct 30 05:01:14 2014
From: rhill at hill-a.ch (Richard Hill)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:01:14 +0100
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
	ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6hQJyT0Pbbd0DtJieJW=3ikNJS5NQeuK-+3TTu-5ENuVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEGGCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>

Seun,

Re footnote [1], there is at present an MoU between ITU and the NRO, see 

  http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm 

I presume that you are not suggesting that this MoU be abrogated, rather you are suggesting that nothing more is needed.

If that is correct, then I don't agree.  As already indicated, I think that more is needed.  But I do agree that it could be done by the NRO (but that would imply that NRO would have to be incorproated as a legal entity).

Best,
Richard
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
  Sent: mercredi, 29. octobre 2014 20:56
  To: Richard Hill
  Cc: Andrew Dul; iana-transition
  Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] lanic update, ideas for new oversight board (MONC)


  On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

    NTIA awards the IANA contract, that is, it decides who performs the IANA function, and how. 

    Presumably the MONC would do that (for the IP address part of the IANA function) instead of NTIA.



  Thanks for echoing that fact. We then need to determine whether its worth forming a council that will only be awarding a periodic contract. IMO if this community decide that a contracting regime is what is desired[1] then that role can be given to the NRO while the composition of NRO-EC is reviewed.


    But you are right to ask for a more detailed explanation: the devil is in the details. 



  ;) 


  Cheers!

  1. Which i don't necessarily think is necessary


    Best Richard



    On October 29, 2014 6:30:17 PM CET, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
      Maybe it's helpful to know what oversight activities is performed by NTIA at it relates to numbers(if any). That would perhaps help understand the scope of work of the MONC. Then the other question of what will the role of NRO look like and what's the formation of the MONC going to look like.

      Cheers!

      sent from Google nexus 4
      kindly excuse brevity and typos.

      On 29 Oct 2014 16:40, "Andrew Dul" <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:

        Hello

        I am currently at the LACNIC meeting and we just had the discussion of ideas & proposals surrounding the IANA transition.  A new set of ideas has been presented here for discussion in this region.  The idea of a new oversight board (MONC) to perform the NTIA oversight function.

        I bring it up here so that you can be aware of it and so that we can discuss the idea in our region as well.

        Below are links to the slides and agenda which are in spanish.

        A few personal notes from the presentation and the discussion.

        Proposal for a Multistakeholder Oversight Numbers Council (MONC)

        Permanent body that would support the NRO, would meet once per year to supervise the development & oversight of IANA functions, similar to the sitting fiscal committee of lacnic.

        It was suggested that oversight role should be done by this body for the numbers portion of the IANA functions.  Members of the Council would have to be selected or appointed to fulfill this role.  How that would happen is not part of this initial idea draft.

        One thing that was noted here is that this is a new idea and that it should be given time for discussion to see if it has merits.  There aren't a lot of details on the structure here at this time, but they should come with time.

        Andrew


        http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/eventos/lacnic22-agenda-detallada

        https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/HBIR5OaMLUQIPZlmgHtCeLpQG4WO9cUjB83vUDPqMtNPuhGbNSNlJ2aVvUpiNdQM?dl=1





        _______________________________________________
        Iana-transition mailing list
        Iana-transition at arin.net
        http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition


--------------------------------------------------------------------------Iana-transition mailing listIana-transition at arin.nethttp://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition

    -- 
    Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.



  -- 

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seun Ojedeji,
    Federal University Oye-Ekiti
    web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
    Mobile: +2348035233535
    alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng


      The key to understanding is humility - my view !


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141030/a0602bdd/attachment.html>

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Thu Oct 30 05:24:55 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:24:55 +0100
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
	ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEGGCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
References: <CAD_dc6hQJyT0Pbbd0DtJieJW=3ikNJS5NQeuK-+3TTu-5ENuVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEGGCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6jDXT3X0Q84tTAA3nDfK-SevBcSfW7XPa4VoyzykZFvqw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

>  Seun,
>
> Re footnote [1], there is at present an MoU between ITU and the NRO, see
>
>   http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm
>
> I presume that you are not suggesting that this MoU be abrogated,
>

I am definitely not suggesting that......


> rather you are suggesting that nothing more is needed.
>

I am rather suggesting that the MOU be reviewed in a manner that allows the
numbers community have ultimate decision when there is need to exercise it.
The area that especially needs review includes the GPDP (item 5).


>
> If that is correct, then I don't agree.  As already indicated, I think
> that more is needed.  But I do agree that it could be done by the NRO (but
> that would imply that NRO would have to be incorproated as a legal entity).
>

Well the council proposed also has to be incorporated and that is why i
indicated that the NRO-EC formation/composition may need to change. However
i don't think all these will be necessarily if there is a single
incorporated entity that empowers the relevant communities (names, numbers,
and protocol) and i just think the IETF may be in the best position for
this.[1]

Regards
1. I have been saying this for some time and yet to hear any opposition to
this.


>
> Best,
> Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* mercredi, 29. octobre 2014 20:56
> *To:* Richard Hill
> *Cc:* Andrew Dul; iana-transition
> *Subject:* Re: [Iana-transition] lanic update, ideas for new oversight
> board (MONC)
>
>  On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
>> NTIA awards the IANA contract, that is, it decides who performs the IANA
>> function, and how.
>>
>> Presumably the MONC would do that (for the IP address part of the IANA
>> function) instead of NTIA.
>>
>
> Thanks for echoing that fact. We then need to determine whether its worth
> forming a council that will only be awarding a periodic contract. IMO if
> this community decide that a contracting regime is what is desired[1] then
> that role can be given to the NRO while the composition of NRO-EC is
> reviewed.
>
>>
>> But you are right to ask for a more detailed explanation: the devil is in
>> the details.
>>
>
> ;)
>
> Cheers!
> 1. Which i don't necessarily think is necessary
>
>>
>> Best Richard
>>
>>
>> On October 29, 2014 6:30:17 PM CET, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe it's helpful to know what oversight activities is performed by
>>> NTIA at it relates to numbers(if any). That would perhaps help understand
>>> the scope of work of the MONC. Then the other question of what will the
>>> role of NRO look like and what's the formation of the MONC going to look
>>> like.
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>>
>>> sent from Google nexus 4
>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>> On 29 Oct 2014 16:40, "Andrew Dul" <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> I am currently at the LACNIC meeting and we just had the discussion of
>>>> ideas & proposals surrounding the IANA transition.  A new set of ideas has
>>>> been presented here for discussion in this region.  The idea of a new
>>>> oversight board (MONC) to perform the NTIA oversight function.
>>>>
>>>> I bring it up here so that you can be aware of it and so that we can
>>>> discuss the idea in our region as well.
>>>>
>>>> Below are links to the slides and agenda which are in spanish.
>>>>
>>>> A few personal notes from the presentation and the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Proposal for a Multistakeholder Oversight Numbers Council (MONC)
>>>>
>>>> Permanent body that would support the NRO, would meet once per year to
>>>> supervise the development & oversight of IANA functions, similar to the
>>>> sitting fiscal committee of lacnic.
>>>>
>>>> It was suggested that oversight role should be done by this body for
>>>> the numbers portion of the IANA functions.  Members of the Council would
>>>> have to be selected or appointed to fulfill this role.  How that would
>>>> happen is not part of this initial idea draft.
>>>>
>>>> One thing that was noted here is that this is a new idea and that it
>>>> should be given time for discussion to see if it has merits.  There aren't
>>>> a lot of details on the structure here at this time, but they should come
>>>> with time.
>>>>
>>>> Andrew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/eventos/lacnic22-agenda-detallada
>>>>
>>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/
>>>> HBIR5OaMLUQIPZlmgHtCeLpQG4WO9cUjB83vUDPqMtNPuhGbNSNlJ2aVvUpiNdQM?dl=1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Iana-transition mailing list
>>>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Iana-transition mailing list
>>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141030/f80bea59/attachment.html>

From rhill at hill-a.ch  Thu Oct 30 05:31:40 2014
From: rhill at hill-a.ch (Richard Hill)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:31:40 +0100
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
	ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6jDXT3X0Q84tTAA3nDfK-SevBcSfW7XPa4VoyzykZFvqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEGKCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>

IETF is not, at present, an incorporated entity.  

Best,
Richard
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
  Sent: jeudi, 30. octobre 2014 10:25
  To: Richard Hill
  Cc: Andrew Dul; iana-transition
  Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] lanic update, ideas for new oversight board (MONC)


  On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

    Seun,

    Re footnote [1], there is at present an MoU between ITU and the NRO, see 

      http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm 

    I presume that you are not suggesting that this MoU be abrogated,


  I am definitely not suggesting that......
   

    rather you are suggesting that nothing more is needed.


  I am rather suggesting that the MOU be reviewed in a manner that allows the numbers community have ultimate decision when there is need to exercise it. The area that especially needs review includes the GPDP (item 5).




    If that is correct, then I don't agree.  As already indicated, I think that more is needed.  But I do agree that it could be done by the NRO (but that would imply that NRO would have to be incorproated as a legal entity).


  Well the council proposed also has to be incorporated and that is why i indicated that the NRO-EC formation/composition may need to change. However i don't think all these will be necessarily if there is a single incorporated entity that empowers the relevant communities (names, numbers, and protocol) and i just think the IETF may be in the best position for this.[1]


  Regards

  1. I have been saying this for some time and yet to hear any opposition to this.



    Best,
    Richard
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
      Sent: mercredi, 29. octobre 2014 20:56
      To: Richard Hill
      Cc: Andrew Dul; iana-transition
      Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] lanic update, ideas for new oversight board (MONC)


      On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

        NTIA awards the IANA contract, that is, it decides who performs the IANA function, and how. 

        Presumably the MONC would do that (for the IP address part of the IANA function) instead of NTIA.



      Thanks for echoing that fact. We then need to determine whether its worth forming a council that will only be awarding a periodic contract. IMO if this community decide that a contracting regime is what is desired[1] then that role can be given to the NRO while the composition of NRO-EC is reviewed.


        But you are right to ask for a more detailed explanation: the devil is in the details. 



      ;) 


      Cheers!

      1. Which i don't necessarily think is necessary


        Best Richard 



        On October 29, 2014 6:30:17 PM CET, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote: 
          Maybe it's helpful to know what oversight activities is performed by NTIA at it relates to numbers(if any). That would perhaps help understand the scope of work of the MONC. Then the other question of what will the role of NRO look like and what's the formation of the MONC going to look like.

          Cheers!

          sent from Google nexus 4
          kindly excuse brevity and typos.

          On 29 Oct 2014 16:40, "Andrew Dul" <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:

            Hello

            I am currently at the LACNIC meeting and we just had the discussion of ideas & proposals surrounding the IANA transition.  A new set of ideas has been presented here for discussion in this region.  The idea of a new oversight board (MONC) to perform the NTIA oversight function.

            I bring it up here so that you can be aware of it and so that we can discuss the idea in our region as well.

            Below are links to the slides and agenda which are in spanish.

            A few personal notes from the presentation and the discussion.

            Proposal for a Multistakeholder Oversight Numbers Council (MONC)

            Permanent body that would support the NRO, would meet once per year to supervise the development & oversight of IANA functions, similar to the sitting fiscal committee of lacnic.

            It was suggested that oversight role should be done by this body for the numbers portion of the IANA functions.  Members of the Council would have to be selected or appointed to fulfill this role.  How that would happen is not part of this initial idea draft.

            One thing that was noted here is that this is a new idea and that it should be given time for discussion to see if it has merits.  There aren't a lot of details on the structure here at this time, but they should come with time.

            Andrew


            http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/eventos/lacnic22-agenda-detallada

            https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/HBIR5OaMLUQIPZlmgHtCeLpQG4WO9cUjB83vUDPqMtNPuhGbNSNlJ2aVvUpiNdQM?dl=1





            _______________________________________________
            Iana-transition mailing list
            Iana-transition at arin.net
            http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition


----------------------------------------------------------------------Iana-transition mailing listIana-transition at arin.nethttp://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition

        -- 
        Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.



      -- 

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Seun Ojedeji,
        Federal University Oye-Ekiti
        web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
        Mobile: +2348035233535
        alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng


          The key to understanding is humility - my view !






  -- 

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seun Ojedeji,
    Federal University Oye-Ekiti
    web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
    Mobile: +2348035233535
    alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng


      The key to understanding is humility - my view !


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141030/2634b34d/attachment.html>

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Thu Oct 30 05:35:27 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:35:27 +0100
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
	ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEGKCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
References: <CAD_dc6jDXT3X0Q84tTAA3nDfK-SevBcSfW7XPa4VoyzykZFvqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEGKCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6jNbo3aF2+RpVT+oYkJvsjBggOTQgsKWVYozd9_k=QPwQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

>  IETF is not, at present, an incorporated entity.
>

By IETF i meant its trust

Cheers!

>
> Best,
> Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* jeudi, 30. octobre 2014 10:25
> *To:* Richard Hill
> *Cc:* Andrew Dul; iana-transition
> *Subject:* Re: [Iana-transition] lanic update, ideas for new oversight
> board (MONC)
>
>  On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
>>  Seun,
>>
>> Re footnote [1], there is at present an MoU between ITU and the NRO, see
>>
>>   http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm
>>
>> I presume that you are not suggesting that this MoU be abrogated,
>>
>
> I am definitely not suggesting that......
>
>
>>  rather you are suggesting that nothing more is needed.
>>
>
> I am rather suggesting that the MOU be reviewed in a manner that allows
> the numbers community have ultimate decision when there is need to exercise
> it. The area that especially needs review includes the GPDP (item 5).
>
>
>
>>
>> If that is correct, then I don't agree.  As already indicated, I think
>> that more is needed.  But I do agree that it could be done by the NRO (but
>> that would imply that NRO would have to be incorproated as a legal entity).
>>
>
> Well the council proposed also has to be incorporated and that is why i
> indicated that the NRO-EC formation/composition may need to change. However
> i don't think all these will be necessarily if there is a single
> incorporated entity that empowers the relevant communities (names, numbers,
> and protocol) and i just think the IETF may be in the best position for
> this.[1]
>
> Regards
> 1. I have been saying this for some time and yet to hear any opposition to
> this.
>
>
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* mercredi, 29. octobre 2014 20:56
>> *To:* Richard Hill
>> *Cc:* Andrew Dul; iana-transition
>> *Subject:* Re: [Iana-transition] lanic update, ideas for new oversight
>> board (MONC)
>>
>>  On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> NTIA awards the IANA contract, that is, it decides who performs the IANA
>>> function, and how.
>>>
>>> Presumably the MONC would do that (for the IP address part of the IANA
>>> function) instead of NTIA.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for echoing that fact. We then need to determine whether its worth
>> forming a council that will only be awarding a periodic contract. IMO if
>> this community decide that a contracting regime is what is desired[1] then
>> that role can be given to the NRO while the composition of NRO-EC is
>> reviewed.
>>
>>>
>>> But you are right to ask for a more detailed explanation: the devil is
>>> in the details.
>>>
>>
>> ;)
>>
>> Cheers!
>> 1. Which i don't necessarily think is necessary
>>
>>>
>>> Best Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> On October 29, 2014 6:30:17 PM CET, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's helpful to know what oversight activities is performed by
>>>> NTIA at it relates to numbers(if any). That would perhaps help understand
>>>> the scope of work of the MONC. Then the other question of what will the
>>>> role of NRO look like and what's the formation of the MONC going to look
>>>> like.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>>
>>>> sent from Google nexus 4
>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>>> On 29 Oct 2014 16:40, "Andrew Dul" <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello
>>>>>
>>>>> I am currently at the LACNIC meeting and we just had the discussion of
>>>>> ideas & proposals surrounding the IANA transition.  A new set of ideas has
>>>>> been presented here for discussion in this region.  The idea of a new
>>>>> oversight board (MONC) to perform the NTIA oversight function.
>>>>>
>>>>> I bring it up here so that you can be aware of it and so that we can
>>>>> discuss the idea in our region as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Below are links to the slides and agenda which are in spanish.
>>>>>
>>>>> A few personal notes from the presentation and the discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proposal for a Multistakeholder Oversight Numbers Council (MONC)
>>>>>
>>>>> Permanent body that would support the NRO, would meet once per year to
>>>>> supervise the development & oversight of IANA functions, similar to the
>>>>> sitting fiscal committee of lacnic.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was suggested that oversight role should be done by this body for
>>>>> the numbers portion of the IANA functions.  Members of the Council would
>>>>> have to be selected or appointed to fulfill this role.  How that would
>>>>> happen is not part of this initial idea draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> One thing that was noted here is that this is a new idea and that it
>>>>> should be given time for discussion to see if it has merits.  There aren't
>>>>> a lot of details on the structure here at this time, but they should come
>>>>> with time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/eventos/lacnic22-agenda-detallada
>>>>>
>>>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/
>>>>> HBIR5OaMLUQIPZlmgHtCeLpQG4WO9cUjB83vUDPqMtNPuhGbNSNlJ2aVvUpiNdQM?dl=1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Iana-transition mailing list
>>>>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Iana-transition mailing list
>>>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
>> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>>
>> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141030/3fb34ba8/attachment.html>

From andrew.dul at quark.net  Thu Oct 30 08:04:18 2014
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:04:18 -0600
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
 ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEGGCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEGGCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
Message-ID: <8ce444ecf2299e1474b4a535c2053567@quark.net>

On 2014-10-30 03:01, Richard Hill wrote:
> ?
> Seun,
> 
> Re footnote [1], there is at present an MoU between ITU and the NRO,
> see
> 
>  http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm [2]
> 

The current MOU is between _ICANN_ and the RIRs individually but acting 
as a group.

Andrew




From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Thu Oct 30 08:11:57 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:11:57 +0100
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
	ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <8ce444ecf2299e1474b4a535c2053567@quark.net>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEGGCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<8ce444ecf2299e1474b4a535c2053567@quark.net>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6jMNmYCMuKBpELcWCCmYcaCrYsLxmv1hL2paFuV40RBLA@mail.gmail.com>

Ah! I did not noticed that. I am sure Richard intend to write ICANN and not
ITU [1]

Thanks for spotting that Andrew

Cheers!
1. That was a big one ;)

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:

> On 2014-10-30 03:01, Richard Hill wrote:
>
>> ?
>> Seun,
>>
>> Re footnote [1], there is at present an MoU between ITU and the NRO,
>> see
>>
>>  http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm [2]
>>
>>
> The current MOU is between _ICANN_ and the RIRs individually but acting as
> a group.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141030/5f2bb530/attachment.html>

From rhill at hill-a.ch  Thu Oct 30 08:26:53 2014
From: rhill at hill-a.ch (Richard Hill)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:26:53 +0100
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
	ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6jMNmYCMuKBpELcWCCmYcaCrYsLxmv1hL2paFuV40RBLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNOEHCCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>

Yes, I meant ICANN not ITU.  Sorry for that.

Best,
Richard
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
  Sent: jeudi, 30. octobre 2014 13:12
  To: Andrew Dul
  Cc: Richard Hill; iana-transition
  Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] lanic update, ideas for new oversight board (MONC)


  Ah! I did not noticed that. I am sure Richard intend to write ICANN and not ITU [1]


  Thanks for spotting that Andrew



  Cheers!

  1. That was a big one ;)



  On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:

    On 2014-10-30 03:01, Richard Hill wrote:

      ?
      Seun,

      Re footnote [1], there is at present an MoU between ITU and the NRO,
      see

       http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm [2]



    The current MOU is between _ICANN_ and the RIRs individually but acting as a group.

    Andrew






  -- 

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seun Ojedeji,
    Federal University Oye-Ekiti
    web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
    Mobile: +2348035233535
    alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng


      The key to understanding is humility - my view !


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141030/e10349ca/attachment.html>

From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Thu Oct 30 14:07:39 2014
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:07:39 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
 ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNOEHCCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
References: <CAD_dc6jMNmYCMuKBpELcWCCmYcaCrYsLxmv1hL2paFuV40RBLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNOEHCCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
Message-ID: <21183182bebc48d78515b447f2d537df@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

Hello,

As someone who very much wants to see the addressing function taken away from ICANN and moved directly to the NRO, I'm not sure MONC is any more useful than the NRO self-governing. The NRO is, after all, strictly bottom-up.  RIR members elect board members. RIR board members select a CEO.  The CEOs run the NRO.  There's accountability up and down the chain. 

My question is how do we leverage the NTIA's desire to step back to dissolve the MOU between USGOV and ICANN wrt the clause, "Establishment of policy for and direction of the allocation of IP number blocks;"

David

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing

[1] https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/icann-mou-1998-11-25-en

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Thu Oct 30 14:42:05 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:42:05 +0100
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
	ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <21183182bebc48d78515b447f2d537df@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAD_dc6jMNmYCMuKBpELcWCCmYcaCrYsLxmv1hL2paFuV40RBLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNOEHCCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<21183182bebc48d78515b447f2d537df@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6h2ngfeK5qnk0PbyN4sAM2G6h4LKyY=Bgx6RMgcJ0pmmg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:07 PM, David Huberman <
David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> As someone who very much wants to see the addressing function taken away
> from ICANN and moved directly to the NRO,


Hmm...i am not sure i really want addressing function taken away from ICANN
as i honestly don't think that is within the scope of the oversight.
However if this is what the community achieve consensus upon then its still
fine so long as we get the new home tidied up accordingly. As for me, all i
care about is that the IANA operator knows that the numbers community has
the final decision on their function.


> I'm not sure MONC is any more useful than the NRO self-governing.


+1


> The NRO is, after all, strictly bottom-up.  RIR members elect board
> members. RIR board members select a CEO.  The CEOs run the NRO.  There's
> accountability up and down the chain.
>


Well i will not in 100% equate selection/election process to
accountability. Yes there is some level of accountability (which i am also
proud of). However i think it will be wrong to assume that respective CEOs
and Board will always act in the interest of the community, unless there is
a process that says so(because at that point they are acting in the
interest of their respective organisation and not necessarily the
community). The policy process for instance was clear and thats why we see
that aspect flourish....however we've seen how the NRO-EC[1] make decision
on behalf of the community without necessarily consulting with the
community.

So while we have something close to perfect, if the overall oversight gets
transferred to NRO, i will like to see quite an improvement in involvement
of the community in its decision process. It may be more relieving to see
the council taking up those roles than the EC (as the council members are
part of the community)

Cheers!
1. This particular IANA transition process is a fact to that, before we
then start seeing some effort towards community involvement

>
> My question is how do we leverage the NTIA's desire to step back to
> dissolve the MOU between USGOV and ICANN wrt the clause, "Establishment of
> policy for and direction of the allocation of IP number blocks;"
>
> David
>
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>
> [1] https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/icann-mou-1998-11-25-en
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141030/42f330cf/attachment.html>

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct 30 15:42:13 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:42:13 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
 ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <21183182bebc48d78515b447f2d537df@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAD_dc6jMNmYCMuKBpELcWCCmYcaCrYsLxmv1hL2paFuV40RBLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNOEHCCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<21183182bebc48d78515b447f2d537df@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <C56055E7-5685-46EB-BD5B-D47ACE7DA9CB@corp.arin.net>

On Oct 30, 2014, at 2:07 PM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> As someone who very much wants to see the addressing function taken away from ICANN and moved directly to the NRO, I'm not sure MONC is any more useful than the NRO self-governing.

David - 
 
   Are you suggesting that the RIR community should be able to determine 
   (via the NRO coordination function) the appropriate contractor to provide 
   IANA operator services for the Internet Numbers Registry, i.e. that the 
   IANA Stewardship transition plan should make that decision explicit, or 
   are you proposing that the NRO should literally be the IANA operator?

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Oct 31 07:53:00 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:53:00 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
 ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <a8a9fd470fc1dfbfce842e8fbc5524af@quark.net>
References: <a8a9fd470fc1dfbfce842e8fbc5524af@quark.net>
Message-ID: <EC6F16E7-D058-4510-9CA0-BA5B92E45687@corp.arin.net>

On Oct 29, 2014, at 11:40 AM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> 
> Hello
> 
> I am currently at the LACNIC meeting and we just had the discussion of ideas & proposals surrounding the IANA transition.  A new set of ideas has been presented here for discussion in this region.  The idea of a new oversight board (MONC) to perform the NTIA oversight function.
> 
> I bring it up here so that you can be aware of it and so that we can discuss the idea in our region as well.
> 
> Below are links to the slides and agenda which are in spanish.

Here's a nice summary from Pablo Hinojosa at APNIC - 
<http://blog.apnic.net/2014/10/31/lacnic-community-discusses-iana-stewardship-transition/>

FYI,
/John 

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Fri Oct 31 08:20:46 2014
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:20:46 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
 ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <C56055E7-5685-46EB-BD5B-D47ACE7DA9CB@corp.arin.net>
References: <CAD_dc6jMNmYCMuKBpELcWCCmYcaCrYsLxmv1hL2paFuV40RBLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNOEHCCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<21183182bebc48d78515b447f2d537df@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>,
	<C56055E7-5685-46EB-BD5B-D47ACE7DA9CB@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <1414758020478.33872@microsoft.com>

John,

I took some time to think through your question. 

I think it makes sense that the NRO should have ultimate authority for the following functions:

a. manage the AS number space
b. manage the IPv4 address space
c. manage the IPv6 address space
d administer the in.addr-arpa and ip6.arpa domains

By "ultimate authority", that would previously have meant that the USGOV would dissolve the 
language within the MOU with ICANN previously referenced, and entered into a new MOU
with the NRO.

Does that sufficiently clarify my proposal?

David

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing

________________________________________
From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 12:42 PM
To: David Huberman
Cc: iana-transition at arin.net
Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] lanic update, ideas for new oversight board (MONC)

On Oct 30, 2014, at 2:07 PM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> As someone who very much wants to see the addressing function taken away from ICANN and moved directly to the NRO, I'm not sure MONC is any more useful than the NRO self-governing.

David -

   Are you suggesting that the RIR community should be able to determine
   (via the NRO coordination function) the appropriate contractor to provide
   IANA operator services for the Internet Numbers Registry, i.e. that the
   IANA Stewardship transition plan should make that decision explicit, or
   are you proposing that the NRO should literally be the IANA operator?

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Oct 31 18:13:18 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:13:18 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] Final Reminder - ARIN is seeking volunteers to
 serve as regional representatives to the CRISP team - Closes midnight
 tonight ET
Message-ID: <4EAAD5FD-1AB6-4F9C-BAC8-97C60F409FCF@corp.arin.net>

Folks -

ARIN is seeking volunteers to join the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team
as representatives of the ARIN region.  The CRISP team will be responsible for producing the IANA
Stewardship transition proposal from the Number Community by 15 January 2015.

For background and details of the CRISP Team, please see the NRO website:

    <http://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team>

For background on the IANA Stewardship Transition planning process, please refer to the website
of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) -

    <http://ianacg.org>

Each RIR region will appoint 3 members to the CRISP Team, including two volunteer community
representatives and one RIR staff member.   Community members who are interested in serving
on the CRISP team should notify me <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> by ** 31 October 2014. **  After that date,
the list of those who volunteered will be published to the iana-transition at arin.net<mailto:iana-transition at arin.net> mailing list and
the ARIN Board of Trustees will appoint 2 volunteers from the list to serve on the CRISP team.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141031/4de396c6/attachment.html>

From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Oct 31 19:19:58 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 23:19:58 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
 ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <1414758020478.33872@microsoft.com>
References: <CAD_dc6jMNmYCMuKBpELcWCCmYcaCrYsLxmv1hL2paFuV40RBLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNOEHCCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<21183182bebc48d78515b447f2d537df@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<,<C56055E7-5685-46EB-BD5B-D47ACE7DA9CB@corp.arin.net> <>>
	<1414758020478.33872@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <8F07BE03-60B9-4D49-AFE2-8BCC7FF230B8@arin.net>

On Oct 31, 2014, at 8:20 AM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> John,
> 
> I took some time to think through your question. 
> 
> I think it makes sense that the NRO should have ultimate authority for the following functions:
> 
> a. manage the AS number space
> b. manage the IPv4 address space
> c. manage the IPv6 address space

The relevant registries are listed in RFC 7249; i.e. the delegated 
portions of unicast address space in each registry, minus the IETF 
technical reservations.

> d administer the in.addr-arpa and ip6.arpa domains

Currently performed by ICANN (pursuant to the IETF/ICANN IANA MOU)
as requested by the RIRs and the IETF - 

   <http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/docs2010/transition-of-in-addr-arpa-generation/>

i.e. it is unclear if anything needs to be done here.

> By "ultimate authority", that would previously have meant that the USGOV would dissolve the 
> language within the MOU with ICANN previously referenced, and entered into a new MOU
> with the NRO.

I'm unsure, do you mean "USGOV would have entered into an new MOU with NRO",
"NRO enters into an MOU with ICANN (just as IETF has for its registries) for 
ICANN to be IANA operator for the Internet Numbers Registries."

> Does that sufficiently clarify my proposal?

I believe so (presuming above clarification.)
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN