Re: [aso-policy] RIR proposal

[Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net>]

At 05:29 PM 2/5/00 -0800, Bill Manning wrote:

> I can not support this proposal in its current form.  It lacks the
> perspective needed for long term vison and quick action that is
> needed by the IANA task to meet fundamental shifts in Internet
> technology.  The bottom-up, membership driven nature of all the RIRs
> will act as an hindrence to Internet growth if they are the only
> authorized delegates of IANA delegated address space.  The IANA
> has always had the ability to delegate when reasonable requests
> were made. This restricts the ability of the IANA to only act as
> a registar to the RIRs. I believe that this proposal is very shortsighted
> and do plead with the ASO to consider the ramifications to the
> Internet if this you endorse this proposal.
I would like to respond in support of the proposal in its current form.

While some may believe that a bottom up process may have some form of
failing in recognizing longer term vision due to the more pressing
quality of immeidate needs, there are very grave and serious
risks in a single body taking executive action using justification
of some form of superior knowledge and foresight without the implicit
balances and open debate that are a feature of a open bottom-up process.
Historically such measures and assertions of unilateral power have
lead us down very dangerous paths, and I believe that it could take
IANA and ICANN down a path leading to conflict of interest with the
RIRs and the RIR membership. I see that as being most unhelpful.

There are of course examples in the past where IANA allocations have
been made in a framework where consequent through would suggest
an alternative action. Bill note advocates IANA as a place where
'reasonable requests' can be made, predicated that in order for
a request to reach IANA the entire RIR structure would've had to
have been subverted in some way in order to get to IANA in any case.

What is NOT at issue here is the ability of ICANN to set global
policy for the RIRs - what IS at issue is that it is then
most unseemly for IANA to have some independet ability of
allocation OUTSIDE OF THESE VERY POLICIES THAT ICANN WANTS
TO IMPOSE ON THE RIRs my emphasis). Of course if the response
were to be that the allocations would conform to these policies,
then there would be no problem in making the allocation through
the RIR structure in the first place, right?

I would like also to note that much thought has gone into this
proposal, and that thought is based on the RIR policies and
processes to date, and based on the acceptance of the ICANN
structure into the future. These policies reflect what we have
learned about address resource administration in the Internet, and
how we manage to strike a balance between the myriad of interests
that are at play in this environment. To claim, as Bill does, that
IANA somehow needs the reserve ability to exercise resource allocation
based on its ability to make hasty decisions with no visible rationale
(synonyms for 'quick action' and 'long term vision' I believe)
is one which I do not believe is in the best interests of the
Internet, nor in the best interests of its panopoly of interested
parties.

  Geoff Huston

   Member, Executive Committee, APNIC

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