[Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?

[Richard Hill]

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
>
>