[aso-policy] Observations on the relationship between RIRs/AC - On openness and transparency

["Mark McFadden" <mcfadden@cix.org>]

All:

I certainly salute the efforts of the AC for getting together in
Brisbane.  What concerns me is my inability to convince the AC members
at ARIN (at the ARIN meeting this week) that there should be a broader
public process in the development of address policy.

As I understand it, the Brisbane meetings are closed to only the AC.
RIRs and ICANN staff have been invited as observers.  Here at the ARIN
meeting an excellent and ambitious agenda has been prepared for
Brisbane.

What's troubling for me is that, when I suggested at ARIN that the Los
Angeles ICANN meeting be used as a natural follow-up, AC members said:

. "well, we're already having a meeting in Brisbane"
. "people can't make travel plans for Los Angeles"

What ever happened to the idea of open and transparent address policy
development?  What I see happening is a series of teleconferences and
meetings that are closed to the usual gang of AC members and RIR
representatives.  Where's the ability for those who are interested to
participate?

The idea that ICANN meetings are an "unnatural" place to gather to
discuss global addressing policy was raised.  I can't understand --
when the ASO is a fundamental part of ICANN -- why addressing shouldn't
be discussed at ICANN's annual meeting?  If the Address Council simply
meets privately with the RIRs -- excluding other interested parties --
what was the point of having an independent AC/ASO in the first place?
In fact, this is the very problem that those of us who objected to the
current ASO MoU were worried about.

A couple of people have suggested that I participate in the open RIR
process and have my concerns (excuse the pun) addressed there.  The
problem is that there is a real tension between global address policy
and regionally developed policy -- as an example, see the difficulty
that ARIN is having building an HTTP 1.1 policy.  The RIRs, naturally,
do not want to see any erosion of their ability to respond to regional
address policy needs.  The RIRs are gradually seeing a real benefit in
cooperating on global coordination -- as an example, the excellent
cooperation on IPv6 addressing allocation policy (no matter what you
may think of the policy).

What's missing is
. an independent way to participate in global addressing policy
development outside the RIRs;
. transparency and openness in the cozy relationship between the RIRs
and the AC; and,
. effective use of the ICANN meetings as a way to discuss addressing
policy.

I hope that the AC will decide to
. make their meetings open to all participants, not just RIRs and ICANN
staff;
. use the opportunity of the ICANN meetings to open up address policy
development; and,
. identify those address policies that are truly "regional" and those
that are global and would benefit from the cooperation of collaborative
policy development.

Mark

Mark McFadden
Chief Technology Officer
Commercial Internet eXchange
www.cix.org -- mcfadden@cix.org
v: (+1) 608-240-1560  f: (+1) 608-240-1562

*       on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy     *
*   To unsubscribe:  send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org  *