Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Key elements of the transition of IANA stewardship
On Sep 12, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I think that an equivalent provision has to be
>>> added somewhere, in the ICANN Bylaws and in a new MoU between
>>> the NRO and ICANN.
>>
>> Indeterminate; presumes first that the IETF's existing RFC 2860
>> isn't already
>> sufficient for the purpose,
>
> Indeed. I don't read it as you do, so I don't consider it sufficient.
So that would suggest three possible options for how to proceed: 1) Continue
as-is, 2) Clarify the existing RFC 2860 MOU to make it plain that administration
of IANA registries includes administration of the Internet number resource
registries, or 3) establishment of a new MOU between NRO and ICANN specifically
for this purpose.
> ...
> As discussed, the autority would not "orginate" anywhere. But if IANA
> remains within ICANN, with its employees reporting to the ICANN Board, then
> the ICANN Board can "order" IANA to do whatever it wants.
Wouldn't that depend on precisely _how_ and _why_ the administration of the
IANA registries remained with ICANN?
> ...
> Indeed such language would be totally inappropriate. If there is an
> agreement in principle to clarify the existing language, then we can work
> out specific language. If you go back to my original post, you will see
> that I was proposing that ICANN and the NRO agree an MoU similar to RFC2860,
> but with a change to section 4 of that MOU.
There are several possible options for proceeding as noted earlier, and it
might be worth discussion the tradeoffs of each.
In particular, these registries must be published without conflict between
them, i.e. an IETF entry for a given address block should not intersect in
an uncoordinated manner with entries from the RIR community. Would this
not suggest that a single IANA operator (and single contract from the IETF)
is the preferred approach? If not, why not?
Thanks!
/John
Disclaimer: my views alone.