Richard, On Sep 10, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote: >> I figure the >> role of ICANN’s Board is primarily to provide a mechanism by >> which interests outside of the RIR world can provide input into >> Internet numbering policies. > > Meaning that you would accept that the ICANN Board could override RIRs > policies? For example, on the basis of advice from GAC? No. The board can refuse to ratify a global policy. That does _not_ override the RIR policies. The ICANN Board can suggest there are other considerations when reviewing a policy, but if you look at the ASO-MoU, in the end, the final step is for folks to go to mediation. This does not impact the RIR policy (which has been approved by all RIRs’ memberships). >> If ICANN did not abide >> by the outcome of RIR policies/processes, the RIRs had already >> created an entity (the NRO) that was specifically designed to >> provide the exact same top-level coordinative service that IANA >> staff performs (that is, allocating top-level blocks of numbers >> to the RIRs) should ICANN be unable/unwilling to do so. > > Yes, but, absent the contract with NTIA, ICANN has no obligation to defer to the NRO. Of course they do. ICANN has entered into an MoU with the RIRs. Even if they hadn’t, there is RFC 2860. Even if you ignore that, the entire mission of ICANN is "is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems.” If the NTIA contract was not there, ICANN’s Board still has a fiduciary responsibility to abide by the corporation’s Bylaws. The IANA functions contract in relation to the numbering function is entirely superfluous. > My point is that, if people think that the NRO should have ultimate > authority, then the procedural and legal framework should specify that > explicity. 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. >> The ICANN Board could also declare Pi = 4. > The value of Pi is determined by mathematics, so it is what it is no matter > what anybody says it is. And the value of an IP address is determined NOT by the board of ICANN or the RIRs, but it’s announcement by service providers into the routing system. Again, the role ICANN and the RIRs play is to ensure that addresses are not duplicated. If ICANN were to declare 18/8 was now owned by Richard Hill, no one would listen. > Contrast this to the situation with respect to domain names, I thought we were talking about Internet numbers. >> A small amount of power resides in ICANN and the RIRs >> by their guarantees of uniqueness and by providing access to >> registration data. > > Again, this is similar to the current situation for telephony, if you > replace ICANN/RIRs by ITU/national regulators. No. National regulators have the force of law. This power _does not exist_ in the Internet numbering world. Instead, there is the voluntary cooperative agreement among the ISPs of the world that the set of 32-bit and 128-bit values that are used on the public Internet are _coordinated_ by the RIRs and ICANN. Neither ICANN nor the RIRs can stop anyone from picking a random 32-bit or 128-bit number range and announcing that onto the Internet (as we have seen on multiple occasions). If ICANN or the RIRs abuse that coordinative role, then they will no longer be providing that role. This is radically different than the role played by national regulators. >> If ICANN (or the RIRs) screw up sufficiently, they’ll simply be replaced. > Yes, but the replacement is hardly "simple" and would create significant disruption. Not really. What is it exactly you think ICANN does with respect to Internet numbering? > I'm not suggesting that > IANA would run amok and publish nonsense. I am concerned that the ICANN > Board could, absent the contract with NTIA, override NRO/RIR > decisions/policies, if the Board felt that it was its fiduciary duty to do > so. Again, the ICANN board cannot override RIR policies. However, even if they could, it would have NO effect. The IANA address registries are not operational in nature. They are merely a publication of mutually agreed conventions of who has what address space. If ICANN were to disregard those conventions, it would simply result in the IANA registries being disregarded (hint: this is not speculative — if you think otherwise, then you must think DEC still owns 16/8). >> Do you believe ISPs will spontaneously decide to terminate >> routing service for the IPv4 address space they announce? > > Of course not. But consider a different scenario. A US Court orders ICANN to transfer a certain set of IP addresses from a > certain country to certain private parties. Sure. Courts (in the US and elsewhere) can order Pi = 4, but that does not make it so. > ICANN puts pressure on the concerned RIRs, > asking them to revoke the addresses in question. Paging John Curran (cc’d on this note on the off chance that he isn’t on this list): what would ARIN do if ICANN told ARIN to transfer 18/8 to Richard Hill? > The non-US based RIRs refuse to comply. 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. > ICANN then considers what steps to > take. This leads to a great deal of confusion and uncertainty. No. If ICANN modified their registry to meet the court demands, it would result in ICANN’s registry of address allocations simply being ignored. It would have no other impact. > Or consider the scenario where GAC, for whatever reason, decides to advise > ICANN not to comply with some new NRO/RIR policy. And suppose that the > ICANN Board agrees to abide by the GAC advice. OK. > Depending on the case, the NRO/RIR might well decide to declare that ICANN > could no longer carry out the IANA functions role to its satisfaction, and > set up a new IANA function. Exactly. > But think of the mess and the disruption that would be caused. I’m actually curious. What mess do you think would be caused? > 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? Regards, -drc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail