Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Key elements of the transition of IANA stewardship
Dear John,
Thank you for this and please see below.
Best,
Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran@arin.net]
> Sent: jeudi, 11. septembre 2014 14:33
> To: rhill@hill-a.ch
> Cc: David Conrad; ianaxfer@apnic.net
> Subject: 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, exactly. The question is who acts on behalf of the community. It's
just like the issue that arises regarding democracy. The power rests with
the people, but who represents them? E.g. elected presidents, parliaments,
etc.
So the question here is, who is formally designated to be the representative
of the concerned community.
>
SNIP
> >
> > 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.)
Sorry, you've lost me. Section 4.3 says: "4.3. Two particular assigned
spaces present policy issues in addition to the technical considerations
specified by the IETF: the assignment of domain names, and the assignment of
IP address blocks. These policy issues are outside the scope of this MOU."
So this seems to me to confirm that this particular MoU does not concern IP
address policies.
Section 4.3 goes on to list (under (a), (b), (c)) some very specific
exceptions to the policy issues that are outside its scope, but, unless I'm
mistaken, the general IP addressing policies that we are discussing here are
not included in those exceptions.
>
SNIP
> > 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.
Yes. All I'm saying is that the formal framework of MoU, contracts, SLAs,
etc. (including the ICANN Bylaws) should clearly say that.
>Feel free to make "Richard's IP number
> policies" and see if they choose to follow "Richard's IP address registry"
> instead...
You know full well that I have no intention of doing anything like that.
SNIP
>
> >>> 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.
See above regrding the scope of RFC 2860.
>
> Richard - you are quite confused about the source of policy authority,
> and hence believe that the RIRs need something from ICANN in this
> respect.
I apologize for not having been clear. I agree with you that the source of
policy authority is the community. And that the community has rested that
authority with the RIRs.
What I'm trying to say is that the formal framework should clearly say that.
> 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.
As you know, I'm very familiar with the situation prior to 1998, and the
events that led to the creation of ICANN, and the discussions that arose
when the US government unilaterally asserted authority over these matters.
>
> Thanks,
> /John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>