RE: [aso-policy] Input to the AC from the ASO workshop at RIPE 37

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

Hans Petter wrote (seeking input):
>>1) What is global policy ?
>>
>>There are several dimensions to this discussion:
>>- replace RFC 2050 with a ICANN Address policy document
>>- what is the distinction between regional and global policy
>>- do we understand and appreciate the differences between the
regional
>>policies ?
>>- differences between v4 and v6 with respect to the last item
>>- what's the role/work mode of the AC ? to make the definite address
policy,
>>or to work on issues as they show up
>>- were is the border between a service level contract and policy
issues.
>>- are there other operating guidelines for the ICANN - IANA than the
global
>>addressing policy ?

Here are some observations:

- a growing number of issues in addressing policy are global in scope,
not regional.  The RIRs recognize this and have met and coordinated
policy in a variety areas.  I think the number of issues that are
global in scope are growing and -- after seeing the debates over IPv6
and HTTP 1.1 name based hosting at a couple of RIR meetings -- I think
global consistency is going to become crucial.  The RIRs can be one
place for people to have input on global addressing issues, but it
shouldn't be the only one.
- I think that RFC 2050 should be updated or replaced with a document
that clearly identifies allocation policies and the exceptional cases
(net-24 and the like) that face both established and emerging
registries.  That ought to be a work item for a "working group" in the
ASO.  I'd be willing to be a contributor to that effort.
- I like to see someone propose a definition of what issues are really
regional issues.  After all the pool of IPv4/IPv6 addresses is truly a
global set of addresses.  It seems to me that they should be managed
with a consistent set of rules regardless of whether your are in Aruba
or Zambia.  So, what are the regional issues?  I understand that there
are administrative issues that distinguish each of the registries --
that makes sense.  But why would there be differences in IP address
policy?
- On global policy, I'd like to see the AC's workflow diagram published
as a draft document on http://www.aso.icann.org with an opportunity to
comment.  Specifically, I'd like to see the mechanisms that are there
that support meaningful public and industry participation in addressing
policy development.  Where in the workflow diagram is the opportunity
for interested companies and engineers to raise addressing issues
outside the context of the RIRs?

It's just my opinion, but that's what you asked for....

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  *