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:
>> There is no "ultimate authority"; to the extent that the community
>> supports the RIR system, then the RIR system acts on its behalf.
>
> Yes, exactly. The question is who acts on behalf of the community. It's
> just like the issue that arises regarding democracy. The power rests with
> the people, but who represents them? E.g. elected presidents, parliaments,
> etc.
>
> So the question here is, who is formally designated to be the representative
> of the concerned community.
Why do you presume "formal designation"?
> 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.
> 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.)
>> 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. Note that David's formulation has the community
recognize (via use) the registries it finds valuable.
>> Feel free to make "Richard's IP number
>> policies" and see if they choose to follow "Richard's IP address registry"
>> instead...
>
> You know full well that I have no intention of doing anything like that.
No, but the point is that administration of a registry is simple track
a table of unique entries; it's the recognition and use by the community
which is important.
>>
>> One could easily argue that the RFC 2860 is entirely sufficient, as it
>> directs ICANN to provide the necessary services for all IANA registries.
>
> See above regrding the scope of RFC 2860.
Indeed. Please reread RFC 2860.
>>
>> Richard - you are quite confused about the source of policy authority,
>> and hence believe that the RIRs need something from ICANN in this
>> respect.
>
> I apologize for not having been clear. I agree with you that the source of
> policy authority is the community. And that the community has rested that
> authority with the RIRs.
>
> What I'm trying to say is that the formal framework should clearly say that.
I'm not at all certain it is necessary, and find that it does create certain
risks (e.g. of capture)
>> Alas, you have things inverted... The RIRs already have recognition of
>> the community, and voluntarily associate with ICANN as a single point of
>> coordination because it is beneficial to do so. Just remember
>> that in 1998,
>> RIPE, APNIC, and ARIN were all operating just fine absent any
>> ICANN or NTIA
>> involvement.
>
> As you know, I'm very familiar with the situation prior to 1998, and the
> events that led to the creation of ICANN, and the discussions that arose
> when the US government unilaterally asserted authority over these matters.
Okay, then please go reread your notes when it comes the Internet number
registry portion of that period.
Ask yourself this question: If the IETF were to create a new version of
the Internet Protocol (version 42), who would be the "policy authority"
for the associated IANA IPv42 number registry (and why?)
Thanks!
/John