Re: [Nro-comments] Isn't one ICANN more than enough?

[L Gallegos <jandl@jandl.com>]

Thank you for your response.  It has cleared up the questions I posed.  

I am in favor of the NRO as proposed, but would still prefer that it not 
be affiliated with ICANN since that corporation is captured by special 
interests.  The numbering function is more critical to the internet 
than the DNS, since DNS is just a layer.  If numbering is captured, and 
we all know that is the intention, the internet will exist for only the 
commercial and political special interests and will fail in its 
original purpose.

Regards,

L. Gallegos

On Friday 03 October 2003 07:28 am, Geoff Huston wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I've interleaved a response
> between
>
> each of your comments:
>  > 1. Where is the input from the greater community to be made and
>  > who, under the policies of the NRO, is the community?
>
> The essential observation here is that  nothing has changed in the
> RIR's own policy process, nor has anything changed in the
> relationship between the regional open policy forums and the RIR. The
> same bottom-up process of self-regulatory mechanisms still apply and
> the risk stated in your comment - that some inappropriate policy is
> imposed on the community - is not facilitated, or even contemplated
> in this NRO structure.  Protection of the community's interests is
> implemented through the same structures as we have today: through the
> community engaging directly in the process of policy determination
> within each region using RIR-hosted services to do so.
>
>  > 2.  In the event of the failure of ICANN (not a bad thing, IMO),
>  > how would the NRO incorporate the IANA role of maintaining the
>  > root and should this IANA function be under the same organization
>  > as the numbering authority?
>
> The safeguards mentioned in the cover letter refer specifically to
> the IANA function of number resource administration. It is not
> envisaged that this organization would be properly structured to
> undertake any form of function of administration of the root name
> system, nor is it considered appropriate that this option be pursued.
> The NRO is not being structured as a potential 'complete' ICANN
> replacement in the event of failure of ICANN. The consideration here
> was that in such an event it was considered probable that the various
> IANA functions would be undertaken by those with a direct interest in
> each particular functional area. So, no it is not envisaged that in
> such an eventuality that root management function would be operated
> by the NRO.
>
>  > 3.  Expansion to an additional layer will incur costs that will be
>  > passed on to the community.  How is this justified?  Costs for
>  > allocation of IPs is already higher than necessary.  Please
>  > justify these charges.  Should the community have to pay for
>  > increased levels of beaurocracy and will this not penalize those
>  > countries and communities who can ill afford it?
>
> The proposed functions of the NRO are in most cases, currently being
> undertaken by the RIRs under the terms of the existing ASO MoU with
> ICANN, and in the remainder of the cases are already undertaken on an
> informal basis between the RIRs. The NRO provides a visible framework
> for this existing cooperative joint activity while not adding any
> significant additional cost overheads to the RIR's operational
> environment.
>
>  > The address allocation function is critical to the operation of
>  > the internet as we know it and the RIR's have shown an
>  > understanding of this responsibility, but where is the oversight
>  > in case of abuse or capture by special interests - as has been
>  > evident in ICANN?  The global community can ill afford capture, so
>  > an answer to this question is also critical.  Every arbitrary
>  > decision made by the RIR's has the potential to dessimate any
>  > given community on the internet.
>
> The issues surrounding capture are of course serious concerns. As
> noted above, the NRO in no way alters the ability of the RIRs and the
> communities they serve to operate with integrity. The checks and
> balances within each RIR's environment of operation are unaltered. In
> the case of NRO actions, these concern global policies. As noted in
> the documents, such global policies are those which require the
> actions of an external body (such as ICANN) in order to be
> implemented. The proposed processes used within the NRO in relation
> to such policies are intended to ensure that RIRs followed their own
> documented processes in reaching agreement with the proposed policy,
> and then undertaking a wider call for comment from the community to
> ensure that significant views have been considered in the formulation
> of the policy. It is considered that this provides the community with
> assurances that there are checks and balances and mechanisms to
> ensure that procedures are followed correctly and that all
> significant viewpoints from interested parties are considered.
> Obviously all this is based on a strong ethos of participation in the
> RIR- hosted open policy forums, and it is upon these sound
> foundations that the framework proposed here has been based.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>     Geoff Huston
>     APNIC Executive Council Member