[IANAOversight] echo from other RIRs

[Richard Hill]

Dear Adiel,

Thank you for your clarifications.

You ask:

> Why will we
> move this part of the function out of ICANN if  right now, as RIR
> we have no reason to complain about the performaces of the
> service provided by ICANN?

Regarding the IANA function strictly speaking, that is 3 and 4 below, I
don't see what value is added by ICANN.  In fact, as we all know, the table
of IPv4 /8 allocations published by ICANN has not always been up to date,
and it still shows 016/8 as having been allocated to Digital.  Further,
unless I am mistaken, the RIRs are paying some US $ 800'000 per year to
ICANN.  If the services provided by ICANN could be provided less expensively
by the NRO, then there would be an advange to not outsourcing to ICANN.

Regarding the policy aspects, that is 1 and 2 below, as stated in my
original message, I think that, absent the IANA functions contract with
NTIA, the ICANN Board could reasonably interpret its Bylaws to the effect
that it has the ultimate responsibility for IP address policies.  Thus, the
ICANN Board could interfere with RIR decisions.

Further, ICANN is subject to US law and US courts.  So the US Congress
and/or a US court could, at least theoretically, order ICANN to do something
inconsistent with RIR policies.

Of course in such a case the RIRs could cancel their agreement with ICANN
and proceed to set up some alternative coorindation mechanism (no doubt the
NRO).  But why take this risk of confusion and uncertainty?

That is, what is the value-added of ICANN's roles 1 and 2 below?

Thanks again and best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adiel Akplogan [mailto:adiel at afrinic.net]
> Sent: vendredi, 17. octobre 2014 01:23
> To: rhill at hill-a.ch
> Cc: ianaoversight at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [IANAOversight] echo from other RIRs
>
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> Thanks for the inputs. Few comment below:
>
> On Oct 17, 2014, at 02:58 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
> > In response to a question asked on the LACNIC list, I posted
> the following:
> >
> > As far as I can tell, ICANN properly speaking does the
> following things with
> > respect to IP addresses:
> >
> > 1. Approves the creation of new RIRs
> > 2. Ratifies the policies approved by the RIRs
>
> I will add a precision on (2) above to say “Ratify **Global**
> policies approved by the RIRs”. Global policy being policies
> defined by RIR communities to be implemented by ICANN/IANA in
> managing number resources for the RIRs.
>
> > And, through the IANA function, it does the following:
> >
> > 3. Allocates top-level IP address blocks to the RIRs
>
> I will say “Allocate IP prefixes and ASN blocks to RIRs based on
> related global policies”.
>
> > 4. Publishes those allocations on its web site
>
> “Publish and maintain theise allocations in a global and open registry".
>
> > One could envisage transferring all those functions to the NRO,
> which would
> > in effect mean that the RIRs would be supervising those
> functions.  Since
> > the RIRs are responsible to their members, that would mean that
> the members
> > of the RIRs would be supervising those functions.
>
> This is a suggestion for discussion and we will appreciate to
> hear from other on this list about it. To help the input on this,
> I will just add a question related to your proposal: Why will we
> move this part of the function out of ICANN if  right now, as RIR
> we have no reason to complain about the performaces of the
> service provided by ICANN?
>
> - a.
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ianaoversight-bounces at afrinic.net
> >> [mailto:ianaoversight-bounces at afrinic.net]On Behalf Of Adiel Akplogan
> >> Sent: vendredi, 17. octobre 2014 00:49
> >> To: ianaoversight at afrinic.net
> >> Subject: [IANAOversight] echo from other RIRs
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> Recently two RIRs (ARIN and APNIC) had a community discussion
> >> during their second face to face meetings. Below are the outcome
> >> from their session that can inspire us as well. I’m very much
> >> interested in the strawman proposal discussed at APNIC meeting:
> >>
> >> APNIC:
> >> https://blog.apnic.net/2014/09/17/iana-stewardship-transition-apnic-38/
> >>
> >> Blog About discussion at ARIN:
> >
http://blog.apnic.net/2014/10/14/iana-stewardship-transition-discussion-at-a
> rin-34/
>
> Thoughts?
>
> - a.
>
>