Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Key elements of the transition of IANA stewardship
Please see below.
Thanks and best,
Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Conrad [mailto:drc@virtualized.org]
> Sent: jeudi, 11. septembre 2014 17:58
> To: rhill@hill-a.ch
> Cc: ianaxfer@apnic.net
> Subject: Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Key elements of the transition of IANA
> stewardship
>
>
> Richard,
>
> On Sep 11, 2014, at 7:40 AM, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
SNIP
>
> The ICANN Board (and ICANN) is merely a coordination point. It
> simply does not provide the authority you seem to assume is
> necessary.
The MOU between NRO and ICANN states "Under this agreement the ICANN Board
will ratify proposed global policies in accordance with the Global Policy
Development Process, using review procedures as determined by ICANN."
According to my dictionary "to ratify" means to give formal sanction to, to
approve and so make valid.
I do not assume that this is necessary, I merely note that, as I understand
the current agreements, that is the situation.
But I recognize that we disagree in interpreting the current agreements.
>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.
Sure. And, again, the question is who those communities charter to publish
things so that nobody is confused. The things to publish are (1) the
assignment policies and (2) the actual assignments.
>
> 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.
As I said before, it hasn't worked that way for many years now for the
matters that we are discussing here. But we can agree to disagree on that
too.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
>