Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Key elements of the transition of IANA stewardship
Dear John,
Thank you for these constructive comments, and please see below.
Best,
Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran@istaff.org]
> Sent: vendredi, 12. septembre 2014 19:06
> To: rhill@hill-a.ch
> Cc: ianaxfer@apnic.net
> Subject: 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.
Yes.
As stated before, I'm not comfortable with (1).
Re (2), on the IETF list, some people have expressed a desire not to modify
RFC 2860. But I do agree that that would be a good way to handle the issue
that I've raised.
>
> > ...
> > 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?
Yes, which reinforces my point that clarification is in order (at least from
my point of view).
>
> > ...
> > 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?
I'm agnostic about that at this point. My view is that the IETF should be
able to decide who does the IANA function for the protocol parameters, and
the RIRs should be able to decide for the IP addresses.
If the RIRs wish to delegate/align with the IETF, then why not.
But then maybe the 5 separate RIR discussions should be merged with the IETF
discussion.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> Disclaimer: my views alone.
>
>
>