Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Key elements of the transition of IANA stewardship
Please see below.
Thanks and best,
Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran@arin.net]
> Sent: jeudi, 11. septembre 2014 20:18
> 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 11:56 AM, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
> >>> the MoU between ICANN and IETF.
> >>
> >> The MOU between ICANN and IETF is for provision of IANA services,
> >> and is not
> >> a formal designation of "authority" that you seem to be
> >> desperately seeking.
> >
> > I am not seeking any designation of authority. I'm noting
> that, in my view,
> > certain documents establish such authority.
>
> Richard -
>
> For clarity, could identify the "certain documents" and the sections
> in each that establish "such authority" with respect to either the
> administration of the number resources registries, or with respect to
> establishment of policies for the number resource registries?
I thought that I'd already provided examples, and that we had already agreed
that we did not agree on the interpretation of that language.
For example, article 1 of the ICANN Bylaws. Or article 5 of the MOU between
ICANN and NRO, which specifies that ICANN will ratify the policies.
>
> I am having trouble discerning your actual "view" that from
> your emails,
> as you've alleged so many different things over the last few messages...
>
> You said:
>
> (a) "So wouldn't it be better to clarify the matter, to make it
> clear that the ultimate authority for IP addressing is NRO?"
>
> but also:
>
> (b) "ASO is an organic unit of ICANN and therefore ultimately subject
> to the authority of the ICANN Board."
>
> but also:
>
> (c) "ICANN has the fiduciary duty to be in charge, meaning that the
> Board has the fiduciary duty to be the ultimate decision-making
> authority."
>
> as well as saying:
>
> (d) "I agree with you that the source of policy authority is the
> community. And that the community has rested that authority
> with the RIRs."
>
> which of (a)..(d) above is what you really mean??
I apologize for not being sufficiently clear. (b) and (c) reflect what I
think the ICANN Bylaws and the MoU between ICANN and the NRO say. (a) is a
wish. (d) reflects what I think the situation should be. That is, I think
that the clarifications mentioned in (a) should reflect (d).
>And "in your view"
> which are the "certain documents" that "establish such authority"?
Please see above.
> I hope you can understand why some might have trouble understanding
> your vision for how the Internet number ecosystem actually works...
>
> In fairness, let me reiterate my view in quite specific terms:
>
> RFC 2860 establishes that ICANN and the IETF agree that ICANN shall
> cause the IANA registries to be administered in accordance with
> IETF-produced specifications, including administration of the global
> portions of the number resource registries.
>
> The RIR system is recognized by the affected community as having
> authority to establish number resource policy, both regionally and
> globally.
Yes, I understand that this is your view. So I propose to agree to
disagree.
>
> The RIRs had such authority prior to ICANN (done via IETF and the RFC
> publication series, e.g. RFC 2050), in conjunction with ICANN via the
> ASO and global policy development process, and are quite capable of
> establishing both regional and global number resource policy in the
> absence of ICANN (if such should ever prove necessary.)
Correct. As we know, ICANN was imposed by the US government. It seems to me
that we can now recognize exactly what you say above and make it clear that
the ICANN Board cannot override RIR decisions. But I recognize that you
think that this is already clear.
SNIP