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 15:18
> 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 8:56 AM, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
> >
> > So the question here is, who is formally designated to be the
> representative
> > of the concerned community.
>
> Why do you presume "formal designation"?
Because there are formal documents: the ICANN Bylaws, the contract with NTIA
for the IANA functions and, at least for protocol parameters, the MoU
between ICANN and IETF.
>
> > 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.
>
> It says:
>
> These spaces have "policy issues" (in addition to technical
> considerations)
>
> Those "policy issues" are outside the scope of the MOU - again,
> this clearly
> says that the _policy issues_ for these spaces are outside the
> MOU scope, it
> does not say that the administration of these spaces is outside
> of the scope.
That is a possible interpretation. In order to make things clear, it would
be better to rephrase it to say explicitly that the administration of those
spaces is within scope.
But that still leaves open the issue of who, in the end, formally approves
the policies. As far as I can tell, you are not arguing that the MoU
between ICANN and IETF says that IETF is the ultimate authority for IP
addressing policies.
So I think that my point is valid: absent the NTIA IANA functions contract,
the ICANN Board would be the ultimate authority that approves IP addressing
policies, unless the contrary is specified, for example in a new MoU between
ICANN and NRO.
>
> > 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.
>
> It then goes on to say: "In the event ICANN adopts a policy that
> prevents it
> from complying with the provisions of this Section 4 with respect to the
> assignments described in (a) - (c) above, ICANN will notify the
> IETF, which
> may then exercise its ability to cancel this MOU under Section 2 above."
>
> How can ICANN possibly adopt a policy (dealing with "policy issues") which
> in some way prevents it from complying with IETF guidance for
> administration
> of these spaces, UNLESS ICANN IS ADMINISTERING THESE SPACES (just
> as it does
> for every other IANA registry per this MOU.)
The clause in question applies only to the narrow areas described in
(a)-(c), not to IP addressing policies in general.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Might be a good idea, but difficult since that requires a party
> to contract
> on behalf of the community.
Yes. That's what the NTIA did with its IANA functions contract, what IETF
has done with its MoU with ICANN, and to some extent what NRO has done with
its MoU with ICANN.
All I'm suggesting is that the NRO MoU with ICANN be expanded to be similar
to the IETF MoU with ICANN.
SNIP