Re: [aso-policy] RIR proposal

[Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net>]

At 05:18 AM 2/6/00 -0800, Bill Manning wrote:
>         "subversion" is not the issue here. what is important
>         is the fact that fundamental changes in the way addressing
>         is managed have occured with some frequency in the past
>         and there is no reason to believe this will not continue
>         into the future.
That may well be the case, but surely the process we should use
to undertake such change is one of consultation and discussion,
involving, these days, ICANN, the ASO and the RIRs. I fail to
understand how IANA making address delegations outside
of such agreed processes of consultation and discussion can be
helpful to anyone at all.


% 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?
>
>         This is a capability that the IANA has always had. The
>         proposal is asking the IANA to abdicate this flexablity
>         to the RIRs.
Yes - in the same way that a number of other processes and
arrangements are changing with the introduction of ICANN
into the picture.

Either this envisaged 'IANA flexilibity' is within the scope of
ICANN policies regarding address allocation or it is not.

If it is within the scope of such policies, then there is no
point in IANA undertaking such activity, given that the RIRs
already allocate addresses under this very same policy, and do
so in a fashion that is properly funded and managed.

If such envisaged allocations are to be outside the scope of
the ICANN policies, then this is a sure recipe for conflict
that places ICANN itself at risk.


>         ... I'll agree
>         that the IANA retaining its discresionary capability is
>         a potent tool and that it is reasonable to ask that its
>         use receive careful scrutiny.
Within the ICANN structure such 'careful scrutiny' falls within
the purview of ICANN and the ASO. If this is the case, then ICANN
has little choice to place any such 'discretionary' activities
under the same policy framework as the RIR activities, and we return
to the issue that within the ICANN framework there is no scope
for the RIR's supply registry, in the guise of IANA, to make its
own direct allocations to end entities.


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