[aso-policy] Note to ASO Council (repost)

["Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Roberts <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>
Message-Id: <199911171329.FAA03405@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>
Subject: Note to ASO Council
To: aso-policy@aso.icann.org
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 05:29:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL34 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Dear ASO Council Members -

I write to encourage the Council to move expeditiously to build an agenda
for policy review and recommendation in the IP address area, and to offer
assistance from the ICANN staff in your work in whatever form best suits
your needs.

Historically, Jon Postel and the IANA staff provided essential and effective
leadership in translating the technical architecture work of the IETF into
the management and administration of the IP address space.  Since those
early and informal days under government funding and oversight, things have
gotten much more complex and the introduction of ICANN has not made life any
easier for the address community.  The ICANN Board, its Address Supporting
Organization and Council, the RIR's, the other ICANN SO's and the wider
world of individuals and organizations involved with IP Addresses are faced
with a number of challenges in creating an orderly and consensus based set
of address policies to guide future development of the DNS.  There are not
only a number of forward looking issues associated with full deployment of
IPv6, but there are quite a few backward looking legacy matters that need
attention.

The process of developing and working through accumulated policy issues has
not only a lot of substance, but also contains a challenge to create good
working relationships among groups that have never faced a global policy
making structure with the legal formality that ICANN necessarily requires as
a result of the government's White Paper and the subsequent agreements which
it has signed with us. I'm personally impressed with the level of talent and
experience possessed by the Directors whom the Council has sent to the
Board, with the membership of the Council itself, and with the dedication
which the RIR Boards and staff have exhibited in revising their own
procedures as part of forming the ASO and signing its MOU. We have all the
ingredients for making the intended process work well.

You are the best judges of the way in which you wish to develop and work
through your policy agenda, but one matter which I regard as important
because it involves specific interests of the IETF and the USG, as well as
the address community, is the question of reserved address space to be
administered for infrastructure purposes by IANA.  Although I never
discussed it with Jon personally, I believe there was a general
understanding that IANA would not delegate all of the address space, whether
v4 or v6, but would retain a sufficient amount to be able to deal flexibly
with matters of a non-commercial character for which IANA has an inherent
stewardship role on behalf of the DNS community. Since we no longer have Jon
to guide us, and we do have a new policy structure flowing from the White
Paper, the DOC MOU, and ICANN's assumption of responsibility for the IANA,
it is now timely that you undertake, on behalf of the Board, a review of the
purposes for which IANA should continue to reserve address space, including
infrastructure, and your recommendations on the manner in which it should be
administered.  At the appropriate time, IANA will submit its staff
recommendations on the issues involved, for your consideration along with
the views of other interested parties.

Recently, IANA allocated to itself, from the reserved infrastructure space,
an address allocation which is being used to support ICANN and IANA's policy
work. This network will also be used to support the requirements of the new
Distribution Master server for the Root Server System, which was recommended
by the ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee.  I authorized this use
of the reserved space on the basis that it was (a) an interim measure
pending ASO study and recommendation on policy reservation of address space
for infrastructure, and (b) consistent with prior policy as established
during the Postel era.  I regret that this step has generated some
misunderstanding and friction with the RIR's, but believe it was essential
under the circumstances. If I understand the objections of the RIR's
correctly, they are based on an interpretation of the appropriate policy for
use of the reserved infrastructure space.  Since the ASO Council is the body
charged with development and recommendation of address policy, I think the
resolution of this matter ought to be considered as part of the broader
review of address infrastructure suggested above.

We are in the process of identifying staff support from ICANN to the ASO. In
the interim, please feel free to call on Andrew McLaughlin or me.

Regards,

- Mike

---------------

Michael M. Roberts
President and Chief Executive Officer

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330, Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601
+1 310.823.9358 voice   +1 310.823.8649 fax   http://www.icann.org

Direct lines:  +1.650.854.2108 voice / +1.650.854.8134 fax
roberts@icann.org


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