Richard, On Sep 11, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote: >> The avoidance of chaos is provided by the mutual consent of >> the communities who use those numbers to allow ICANN and the RIRs >> to _coordinate_ (not authorize) those numbers to ensure no duplication. > > Sure. And, again, the question is who those communities charter to publish > things so that nobody is confused. The things to publish are (1) the > assignment policies and (2) the actual assignments. No. Or at least, that is not how how you started this discussion. You stated: "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.” There is a vast difference between publishing things so that folks are confused and having “unrestricted ultimate authority”. If you are suggesting there needs to be additional clarity on the publication function, perhaps including SLAs, I’d agree. But that isn’t how you started this discussion. >> I understand this is decidedly different to the world in which >> nation-states get together in closed rooms to define treaty >> obligations which member nations can enact via national laws that >> impose or constrain the behaviors of telephony providers. > > As I said before, it hasn't worked that way for many years now for the > matters that we are discussing here. But we can agree to disagree on that > too. My last experience with the ITU was being invited but then being barred from participating in a discussion on IPv6 addressing and being locked out of the room in Geneva because I worked for ICANN. Admittedly, this was a few years ago (2008 I believe). I’m honestly curious: how do things work now? Regards, -drc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail