[rpd] A question for the PDWG

Thu May 26 10:34:15 UTC 2022

I will be happy to contribute.

RFC7020 passed "silently" in IETF, not good. Not good that a BCP is replaced by an informational document.

Not good something which is not right:

   One particular change of note is that RFC 2050 defined an appeal
   process and included:

      If necessary, after exhausting all other avenues, the appeal may
      be forwarded to IANA for a final decision.  Each registry must, as
      part of their policy, document and specify how to appeal a
      registry assignment decision.

   The RIRs have developed consensus-based policies for appeals, and
   over time, they have become accepted by the respective RIR
   communities.  As a result, the ability to further appeal to IANA is
   no longer appropriate.

IETF is at the end the "owner" of the protocols and Internet Resources. IETF must have the right to oversight if something is not going right and be able to correct it.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet

El 26/5/22, 11:51, "Andrew Alston via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net> escribió:

    Just as a note on RFC7020 -

    I looked at this document and noted that it is information and replaced a BCP - which was interesting in and of itself (that normally doesn't happen), but yes - it is purely an informational document.

    The question of if a new BCP around the functioning of RIR's is needed - is an interesting question, and if there is sufficient interest in doing an updated 7020 either as a BCP or as an informational document - I'd be happy to work on something with those interested.  It has also been raised with me about writing a corporate governance for RIR's document under the auspices of the IETF, either as an IETF document or an ISE document.  On the former, I think there is merit in additional work here - on the latter - I am far from convinced that writing RIR governance documents through the IETF - either via informational track, bcp track or ISE track would be a good idea - in fact I can see distinct problems with it.

    If there is interest in doing an updated 7020 though - I'd happily contribute - to the point where I'd consider AD sponsoring such if the need arose and the contents of the document were sane (provided I wasn't an author on it as that would create a distinct conflict that I could not be party to)

    The question on this though is - what are the areas of 7020 that would need to be fixed/changed - and do we have sufficient people who are wiling to take the pen to do this work.  The other question of course would be if we wish to take this to a BCP or another informational document.  Curious to hear thoughts.

    Thanks

    Andrew 

    -----Original Message-----
    From: David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> 
    Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 7:45 PM
    To: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
    Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
    Subject: Re: [rpd] A question for the PDWG

    Fernando,

    On May 25, 2022, at 8:44 AM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
    > I think you missed my main point about this topic.

    I don’t believe so. My understanding (please correct me if I am mistaken) is that you would like there to be (or rather, that you believe it illogical for there not to exist) a governance hierarchy that sits atop the RIRs such that misbehavior by an RIR can be directly addressed. I am merely pointing out that while this may (or may not: what happens when the parent is captured by “the bad guys"?) be a good idea, it does not reflect current reality as defined by existing arrangements between network operators, the RIRs, and ICANN. Despite your view about the logic, ICANN has no mechanism to “de-recognize” an RIR and even if it did, it’s wildly unlikely the RIRs or network operators would care.

    > That must be a counter balance measures for the rest o Internet community to stop bad actors, including entire RIRs to do things that may affect the stability of the Internet.

    There is: that power is vested in the respective RIR communities.

    > Regarding RFC 7020 I personally hope it gets fixed at some point. I don't think that is all bad, but it lacks a fundamental point to any system like this: double degree of jurisdiction which must exist in any administrative and legal system. It simply makes any RIR administrative final.

    Again, RFC 7020 merely documented the system existing at the time of publication (it might have evolved since then). It is descriptive, not proscriptive. The Internet, including the administration of numbering resources, is _decentralized_. This has both positive and negative implications. For example, you can’t "appeal to authority" since there isn’t one.

    Regards,
    -drc

    _______________________________________________
    RPD mailing list
    RPD at afrinic.net
    https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.