[rpd] [PDWG-Appeal] REPORT ON Appeal against the non-consensus determination on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (RPKI R

[David Conrad]

Owen,

Since you were using present tense, I thought you were talking about current reality.  In this reality, what you stated was incorrect and I was merely pointing that out. I’ve no comment on potential future or alternative realities.

BTW, the “Empowered Community” is a bit more than "amounting to the NRO".  See https://www.icann.org/ec.

Regards,
-drc


> On Apr 8, 2021, at 3:54 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> 

> 

> 

>> On Apr 8, 2021, at 13:20 , David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org <mailto:drc at virtualized.org>> wrote:

>> 

>> Owen,

>> 

>> On Mar 8, 2021, at 12:14 PM, Owen DeLong via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:

>>> Actually, ICANN does not have the authority to sanction new RIRs. The IANA is involved in that process.

>> 

>> While not particularly relevant to the discussion, this is incorrect.  IANA has no role in the creation of new RIRs.  The decision to recognize a new RIR is ICANN Board’s based on recommendation from the ASO (see section 4.b.2 of https://aso.icann.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ASO-MoU-Executed-Nov-7-2019.pdf <https://aso.icann.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ASO-MoU-Executed-Nov-7-2019.pdf>)

> 

> This function resting with the ICANN Board is strictly an artifact of it’s function as the IANA NUMBERING FUNCTIONS. Were another organization later chosen to perform the IANA numbering functions, the ICANN Board would not have any role in doing so.

> The MoU you cite is strictly based on the fact that ICANN has some role in administration of number resources which is strictly a function of them being awarded the numbers portion of the IANA functions contract.

> 

> Were the empowered community (which amounts to the NRO under the current structure) to select a different provider to fill that role, the ICANN ASO would cease to have any meaningful role, though the NRO (which currently fulfills the ICANN ASO role as defined in the ICANN bylaws) would still retain its role in administering the contract under which those functions are provided. At that point, presumably, the board of the new IANA NUMBERING FUNCTIONS provider would become the entity responsible for formally recognizing new RIRs. Presumably ICP-2 or some successor document would still be used to govern that process.

> 

>> 

>>> As I understand it, the empowered community through the NRO controls the awarding of the IANA functions contract which is currently awarded to ICANN and subcontracted too PTI. (I’m still not 100% clear on the relationship between ICANN and PTI).

>> 

>> PTI is a wholly-owned affiliate of ICANN. All the IANA functions are performed by PTI and, of course, the NRO does NOT control the awarding of the IANA functions, although they have chosen ICANN to perform the IANA _numbering_ function (see https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/SLA-Executed-ICANN-RIRS.pdf <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/SLA-Executed-ICANN-RIRS.pdf>).

> 

> Fine… THey do not control the awarding of the IANA functions, they control the awarding of the IANA NUMBERING FUNCTIONS.

> 

> This is a distinction without a difference in the context of the discussion.

> 

> Owen

> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210408/ec8fef33/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210408/ec8fef33/attachment.sig>