[rpd] [arin-ppml] LACNIC proposal to create a global internetregistry

[Owen DeLong]

> On Apr 3, 2018, at 00:50, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Owen for your thoughts and views and hope it opens more discussion on list on this proposed global policy.
> 
> Just one point USG may be interested via FCC and GOP people in congress and else are interested in ICANN and never wanted it out. And as you know it was plainly and executive order by Obama that trump can revoke just like net neutrality….. 

Not quite. NTIA had been contracting for IANA functions. At the end of the process, they simply didn’t renew the contract, which released ICANN and the community to its own devices. Of course, NTIA required that the community have a process for the communities (really, there are three distinct IANA constituencies) to manage the IANA functions contract going forward and an orderly transition process. If the community had failed to achieve this, likely NTIA would have renewed the contract. 

However in the current state, where the contract expired and other legal structures have been put in place outside of the USG, it’s actually pretty far fetched to believe USG could nationalize the IANA again. Certainly it would take more than an executive order. 

The man with the Guinnea pig hairdo is a temporary problem. Republicans (and democrats) are a longer lasting problem, but hopefully we can eventually overcome them too. 

Owen

> 
> But anyhow i find the idea interesting and of course needs more discussions in our region that just a policy that was dropped and we do not discuss enough of course and eventually could be improved.
> 
> 
>>> On Apr 3, 2018, at 10:32, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 1, 2018, at 10:28 , Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> I have had long thought on this. Let’s look at it this way;
>>> 
>>> First, IANA /PTI is the authority controlling the resources and split to the 5 RIRs. That is fine up till here.
>> 
>> 	Let’s be clear… IANA/PTI is the registry that tracks the distribution of Number Resources to the 5 RIRs
>> 	according to global policies developed by the RIRs and forwarded to the ICANN board through the ASO-AC/NRO-NC.
>> 
>>> Second, with a growing financial situation for ICANN will also automatically influence PTI since the RIRs still contribute to its running plus ICANN financial support
>> 
>> 	I think it would be good if the communities in the RIRs had a much clearer picture of how ICANN/PTI relate
>> 	and what IANA functions live where and how much the RIRs are paying to PIT and how much to ICANN for those
>> 	purposes and for any other purposes as well.
>> 
>>> Third, Perhaps most important is that we know it cannot be moved from the USA territory and in case of a financial meltdown it may affect us again, perhaps we may have to see ICANN / IANA going back to the US authorities !!!! It is a risk
>> 
>> 	I think it is unlikely the USG would want to take on those responsibilities again now that they have managed to
>> 	unload them.
>> 
>>> If all five RIRs can to see an agreement since it is a global policy being proposed. I am not sure whether the ICANN board which is lobbied greatly may accept such a position but, if we do not try it may never happen. I believe in ideas that makes the system move. We are not ten years back or the year before. 
>> 
>> 	My understanding is that if the RIRs make a global policy governing how number resources are managed, the ICANN
>> 	board has no real authority to reject the policy short of it posing a fiduciary danger to ICANN itself. Not sure
>> 	how that all works in the new PTI-IANA/ICANN world, but if the 5 RIRs agree, then they have the option to fire
>> 	PTI/ICANN and seek a new IANA services provider as well.
>> 
>> 	That having been said, I’m not yet convinced that this is a good idea that should be pursued. I’m not convinced
>> 	that it isn’t, either, but my default position until such time as I see a clear benefit or need is that the risks
>> 	outweigh the benefits.
>> 
>>> Such a proposal can eventually meet ICP2 if worked out in consensus. It will not be a full alignment but worth a shot. Numbers and names work together as much as they are also split. 
>> 
>> 	Not sure what you mean about numbers and names. ICP2 has nothing to do with Names. It’s strictly about how to create/
>> 	certify/allow a new RIR to join the fold, as it were. One of the provisions which will be very difficult to work around
>> 	here is the statement that RIRs should be roughly “continental” in scope.
>> 
>>> On another aspect the importance of legacy space advertising is also important to know and see what is doable or not. We know there is quite a lot of space as well in the legacy space and many are still pitching for them.. If we are able to reconcile all the resources as it stands today. We may have a real visibility of resources as well as the underlying dark web as well. With a little bit of focused research.
>> 
>> 	I’m not sure how any of this relates to the proposal to create a new “global” registry. I personally think that
>> 	chasing legacy space is a bit akin to buying record presses instead of servers… Most people today download their
>> 	music. Legacy space is strictly 32-bit addressing which is rapidly becoming passe.
>> 
>>> My personal view is that it is worth a thought and perhaps can be improved since it serves both v4 and v6. It might if we all focus and design the system to sustain the communities in all RIRs may see some relief perhaps. 
>> 
>> 	Certainly worthy of consideration. I’m not sure what the perceived benefits or advantages are, but several people
>> 	I have great respect for are supporting the idea, so I assume they see some merit to the proposal.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kris Seeburn
> seeburn.k at gmail.com
> www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
> 
> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
> 
> <KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20180403/cf0de46d/attachment.html>