[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [aso-policy] RIR proposal
Mike's posting included the following:....
"the contractor [ ie ICANN] shall perform the following IANA functions:
<snip>
- Allocation of IP address blocks. This involves overall responsibility
for the allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 address space. It includes
delegations of IP address blocks to regional registries for routine
allocation, typically through downstream providers, to Internet end-users
within the regions served by those registries. It also includes
reservation and direct allocation of space for special purposes, such as
multicast addressing, cable blocks, addresses for private networks as
described in RFC 1918, and globally specified applications."
and noted:
I believe that this language is consistent with the corresponding portions
of the White Paper, the ICANN Bylaws, and the ASO MOU.
If you think we need more dialog on the subject of a charter for IANA
within the ICANN framework, I would be happy to participate.
Not wishing to curtail what could be a productive potential area of
dialogue, could I perhaps request one dialogue at a time? At least
within the aso-policy at any rate.
The subject of the ASO discussion at this point is not the contract
between ICANN and Commerce - the discussion is one of the method by
which ICANN discharges this function.
Let me omit the term 'IANA' `for a second, and phrase the salient
points of the RIR proposal:
- ICANN discharges its responsibility to undertake the allocation of IP
address blocks through the structure of the Regional Registries.
- The Registries undertake their function within the framework of global
address allocation policies endorsed by ICANN.
The point we have been debating for the past few days is the note
from Bill Manning that within the scope of the RIR proposal there should
be some ability for ICANN to make address allocations outside of the RIR
structure.
The grounds for such ability have been cited as a desire to allow some
allocations to be undertaken hastily (ok, thats a pejorative phrasing
:-), I'll accept 'in a timely manner' as an alternative characterization)
and outside of the normal scope of ICANN policies and RIR practices
(ditto, the term 'flexibility' wcan be used instead).
The grounds against such an ability, and in favour of the RIR proposal,
have been cited as follows: Allowing such 'quick' and 'flexible' additional
allocations to be undertaken by ICANN outside of the RIR practices
would be contrary to the concept of a single policy structure for address
allocations (lack of policy coherence), contrary to the concept of placing
all address allocations to end parties on a uniform footing (lack of
fairness), and having due process for all address allocations (lack
of accountability and openness).
That's where I see we are at the end of a week's dialogue as far as I
can tell.
I'm unclear how a charter for IANA within the ICANN framework would assist
in the further consideration of the RIR proposal at this juncture in
terms of the current ASO policy dialogue on this particular topic.
regards,
Geoff Huston
* on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org *
|