Re: [ga] [Fwd: [address-policy-wg] ICANN Ratifies Global Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Address Space]
At 03:53 AM 9/13/2006, Karl Auerbach wrote: Martin Hannigan wrote: The policy was put forth from within the RIR's that contain many hordes of technical people. Technically, it is reasonably sound. But as a "policy" it is significantly lacking with regard to the quality and nature of the obligations that the RIRs ought to follow in their own delegations. In that regard it is more of a supplicating kow-tow on the part of ICANN in the direction of the RIRs than as a policy that is designed to improved the stability of the internet for the benefit of all. If I am interpreting what you are saying correctly, that the balance of power is in the RIR's favor here, I agree with you. The ASO insures that the policies of the RIR's were followed in development of the policy, that there is evidence to support that fact, and then certifies that to the Board of Directors. That's pretty much it as far as policy goes. There is a relatively good group of volunteers on the ASO and the Board did interact with us on this policy. They weren't absent from the discussion, especially volunteers filling Board seats 9 & 10, which are appointed by the ASO. But when we compare it to DNS policy - it stands head and shoulders above. This is because this *is* technical and largely insulated from commercial and political pressures (except the regional and national demands for address space.) I think Item A is something that should read ".. to be listed as Exhibit A" and then the reference may make sense. I didn't notice that, but I don't claim to be a lawyer or a grammar and spelling wizard. I'll make sure that this gets "noticed" and see if something can't be done about it. Easily. Thank you for your comments. I find them helpful and never dull.
-- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations hannigan@xxxxxxxxxxx
|