Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Key elements of the transition of IANA stewardship
Dear David,
Thank you for these good comments and please see below.
Best,
Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Conrad [mailto:drc@virtualized.org]
> Sent: jeudi, 11. septembre 2014 18:38
> 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 9:18 AM, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> No. Or at least, that is not how how you started this discussion.
> You stated:
>
> "If there is no contract between ICANN and some external entity,
> then ICANN
> would have unrestricted ultimate authority over IP addresses.
> That is, the
> ICANN Board could, if it considered it appropriate, override RIR
> policies.”
>
> There is a vast difference between publishing things so that
> folks are confused and having “unrestricted ultimate authority”.
>
> If you are suggesting there needs to be additional clarity on the
> publication function, perhaps including SLAs, I’d agree.
Noted. Hopefully we can build on that.
>But that
> isn’t how you started this discussion.
But that's why we are having a discussion: to clear up misunderstandings and
come to some common ground.
>
> >> 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.
>
> My last experience with the ITU was being invited but then being
> barred from participating in a discussion on IPv6 addressing and
> being locked out of the room in Geneva because I worked for
> ICANN. Admittedly, this was a few years ago (2008 I believe). I’m
> honestly curious: how do things work now?
Since ICANN is not a member of ITU, you would be able to attend only if you
were in a delegation from a member, for example AFRINIC, APNIC, RIPE-NCC or
USA.
But I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to what happens at the
national level, where there is far less regulation than in the past.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
>