Richard, On Sep 11, 2014, at 7:40 AM, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote: > 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. Once again, no. The ICANN Board (and ICANN) is merely a coordination point. It simply does not provide the authority you seem to assume is necessary. You appear to insist on viewing Internet numbers management as a top-down system where authority flows down from a single enabling document or entity. I’m not sure how to explain to you in terms you’ll understand that the Internet numbering system simply doesn’t work that way. The authority of the Internet numbering system is vested in the actual use of those numbers. ICANN and the RIRs serve to publicly memorialize that use. The avoidance of chaos is provided by the mutual consent of the communities who use those numbers to allow ICANN and the RIRs to _coordinate_ (not authorize) those numbers to ensure no duplication. Your scenario of the ICANN board “overriding” RIR policy simply can’t happen. Neither ICANN’s Board nor ICANN has any mechanism to redefine Internet numbering policy in a way that would have any effect. I understand this is decidedly different to the world in which nation-states get together in closed rooms to define treaty obligations which member nations can enact via national laws that impose or constrain the behaviors of telephony providers. Regards, -drc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail