Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Key elements of the transition of IANA stewardship
On Sep 11, 2014, at 5:30 AM, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
> So wouldn't it be better to clarify the matter, to make it clear that the
> ultimate authority for IP addressing is NRO?
Richard -
There is no "ultimate authority"; to the extent that the community
supports the RIR system, then the RIR system acts on its behalf.
> Yes, but that MoU only specifies that NRO is the ASO. ASO is an organic
> unit of ICANN and therefore ultimately subject to the authority of the ICANN
> Board.
The NRO acts as the ASO; the extent to which ICANN has authority over
the NRO (and NRO over ICANN) is covered by the written statements in
the agreement and nothing more.
>> Even if they hadn’t, there is RFC 2860.
>
> I think that it is generally agreed the RFC 2860 applies only to protocol
> parameters.
RFC 2860 does not apply only to protocol parameters; the language,
while convoluted in some respects, makes clear that ICANN is bound
to provide all IANA services for all registries per supplied policy,
but further that certain "policy matters" are beyond scope of that
IETF/ICANN agreement. Read section 4.3 very carefully, since it
makes clear ICANN performs IANA registry services for DNS and IP
spaces, as part outlining consequences of ICANN performing such
in conflict with IETF technical guidance (and that being a trigger
for termination.)
>> And again, you’re viewing the world from a top-down prescriptive
>> perspective. The NRO does not have ultimate authority. The
>> Internet numbering world simply does not work that way.
>
> You lost me. Somebody has ultimate authority for formally approving
> policies. The question here is whether it should be the NRO or the ICANN
> Board.
For IP number policies, the community has such authority and presently
vests it in the RIR system. Feel free to make "Richard's IP number
policies" and see if they choose to follow "Richard's IP address registry"
instead...
> Again, the value of Pi is a mathematical construct. Who owns what IP
> address block is a human (legal) construct. Courts can and do make things
> happen to humans, such as seizing their property and giving it to someone
> else.
The numbers themselves are simply a sequence of digits, and it is not clear
that "ownership" is a meaningful concept. A particular set of numbers in a
registry has more semantics, i.e. it is an address block if the registry is
an address registry. Again, feel free to run one if you'd like, and assign
the entire 32-bit IP address space to various parties in "Richard's Global
IP Registry"
We happen to operate the Internet Number Registry System, and while some
folks have rights to particular entries, those rights overlap with the
rights of the community to the same entries in the registry. The policies
are what determine how these rights interact, and we have yet to have any
court make a determination or ruling that runs contrary to the community
developed policy.
>> Unless forced by a court, I feel safe in saying the US-based RIR
>> would also refuse to comply unless the RIR’s membership decided
>> it was appropriate to do so.
>
> Sure. And this would create an inconsistency, which might or might not
> result in practical problems.
Also, it would require a court to direct a private entity to undertake
actions on behalf of a unrelated third party, which is an extremely
unlikely event (I speak from first hand experience)
>>> So I think that, as outlined in my original post to this list,
>> it would be a
>>> good idea for the NRO to follow the precedent established by
>> the IETF and to
>>> negotiate a binding contract with ICANN for the IANA functions
>> related to IP
>>> addresses.
>>
>> Isn’t that the ASO-MoU?
>
> No. The ASO-MoU merely says that the NRO is the ASO, an organic ICANN body.
> RFC 2860 says that the IETF is in charge of protocol parameters. That is
> something different.
One could easily argue that the RFC 2860 is entirely sufficient, as it
directs ICANN to provide the necessary services for all IANA registries.
Richard - you are quite confused about the source of policy authority,
and hence believe that the RIRs need something from ICANN in this respect.
Alas, you have things inverted... The RIRs already have recognition of
the community, and voluntarily associate with ICANN as a single point of
coordination because it is beneficial to do so. Just remember that in 1998,
RIPE, APNIC, and ARIN were all operating just fine absent any ICANN or NTIA
involvement.
Thanks,
/John