ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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 ICANN announcement is available from the ICANN website at:
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-11sep06.htm

It's not that odd of a policy, except that it tends to be based more on faith in the RIRs than in detailed specifics. But there is a fair amount of real experience from the IPv4 world built into it.


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 got the impression that no one on the board actually read this policy - it is not only vague and subjective, but also has internal references that are dangling. Like what is "Item A"?


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.


Best,


-M<






--
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff Network Operations
hannigan@xxxxxxxxxxx





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>