Re: [aso-policy] RIR proposal

["Hans Petter Holen" <hph@infostream.no>]

> "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. 
I agree.

> In the evolution of IPv4, two major shifts
> included the original imposition of the the subnet model
> (classes) and then the imposition of CIDR. Both these changes
> were derived from outside the existent RIR nee IR process
> and were tested in the engineering community with direct
> access to the IANA for addressing changes.
>
I am not shure I follow you here. Shurely the initiatives for making theese
changes came from the engineering communicty but at least the last
one, introduction of CIDR was at least in Europe properly discussed
and passed trough the regional policy forum at RIPE.

The introduction of subnets is way past my time, and I would also
argue that is well before a fuctional RIR system was in place.

> However it is prudent to note that the whole RIR structure
> is of recent vintage as well. My particular RIR is about
> three years old and the others are roughly the same. The IANA
> task has had about two decades of experience.  

Here I agree fully. But I wonder: is this due to the function of
IANA or to the inight of Jon Postel ?
 
> So yes, I do think it is wise to allow the IANA to retain
> its ability to delegate as we have seen in the definition
> and early deployment of the 6bone, before the RIRs had any
> understanding of the various issues.  There are times when
> a decision must be made -AND- documented when there is no
> "visible rationale".  The net 39 experiment was one recent
> example. This would not have happened within the construct
> of the RIR proposal and without it having been managed by the
> IANA, the Internet would be much worse off now. 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.  It is unreasonable to abdicate
> that capability because the "panopoly" of commercial interests
> wish a stable future. In a bad light, this could be viewed as
> an attempt by the RIRs to restrict entry into the address
> registration arena.

Interesting toughts, my follow-up question then would be: who is IANA,
who will make theese desicions ?
- the IANA staff (who may change over time)
- the ICANN staff (isn't the IANA staff employees of ICANN ?)
- the ICANN board ?
- the ASO
- the ASO Address Cuncil ?

-hph


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