[cooperation-wg] Minutes of the Coop-WG meeting during RIPE 68 in Warsaw - Part 2

Dear all,

allow me some comments on the draft minutes:

>     Danniel Karrenberg recalled that this is not the first time this
>     discussion has taken place, 


      ... and that the RIPE community has been
>     vocal in its preference for the US government stepping away from
>     this oversight role since the late 1990s. 

I do not recall making reference to specific positions. Rather I said
that "the RIPE community has taken an active part in the discussion
around the formation of ICANN and the organisation and delivery of IANA
services.

>     ... He stressed the success of
>     the RIR community processes in policy-making ...

I recall specifically mentioning the "legitimacy and credibility" of our
policy making process

      ... and argued against
>     over-complicating the situation. He also noted that the IANA is
>     three distinct groups of functions (number resources, the DNS root
>     zone and protocol parameters), and the RIPE community discussions
>     should focus primarily on the number resource functions; if
>     difficulties in defining governance processes for the DNS root zone
>     threaten to derail the oversight transition process, the community
>     should be explicitly prepared to propose unbundling those functions
>     and taking oversight of the numbering functions.

...

>     Daniel Karrenberg argued that the community does not need another
>     level of oversight for protection, and noted that the RIR
>     communities already have solid agreements in place with ICANN, which
>     ICANN cannot unilaterally change. He stressed the importance (and
>     his optimism) of achieving community consensus on a proposal.

...
>     He
>     again suggested that the RIR communities should make every effort to
>     unlink the number-related IANA functions from the DNS.


I most definitely did not utter the last sentence. I recall saying that
"the RIPE community should avoid being drawn into the discussions about
governance and oversight of DNS root zone management and stick to its
purview of Internet number resources."

So far about the minutes.

---

For clarity let me re-state my advice to the community and this WG in
particular once more:


- This discussion is not new. It is part of our ongoing engagement in
the development of ICANN and IANA. Those who may not be aware of this
engagement should make themselves aware for continuity's sake. This is
all well documented in RIPE minutes and RIPE NCC/NRO statements. We are
stronger when we are consistent and refer back to long standing
positions. We should see this discussion as an evolution rather than
such a Big Deal(TM) and stick to our principles.

- With respect to the IANA services, RIPE is about Internet number
resources only, which includes the associated reverse DNS delegations.
We need to avoid being drawn into discussions about governance and
oversight of DNS root zone maintenance or the protocol parameters. There
are other fora for this. Straying into these areas will confuse our
discussion and undermine the legitimacy of our process.

Detail: Technically the RIPE NCC is also a customer of IANA whenever we
need to change the address(es) of k.root-servers.net. Under the current
IANA arrangements this has happened exactly once, when we added an IPv6
address; that worked flawlessly and it is not likely to happen again in
the foreseeable future. So we could discuss this aspect if we feel it is
really necessary. ;-)

- The RIPE governance process has a longer history than ICANN and a much
longer standing than the current IANA arrangements. We have considerable
credibility and legitimacy. There are no serious challenges to the
legitimacy of the number resource policy process of RIPE and the other
RIRs. We have successfully managed the run-out of IPv4 address space, a
finite resource! We should be proud of our achievements and be assertive
about oversight when necessary.

- We should be prepared to to separate the number resource aspects of
the IANA service and create our own mechanism for this part of the IANA
service *if, and only if,* the DNS root zone oversight discussions
threaten to derail a consensus about the evolution of IANA or push it in
a direction that is unacceptable to us. The IETF has already taken such
a position w.r.t. the protocol parameter part of the IANA service.

While I am no lawyer and do not play one on TV either ;-), personally I
would be very comfortable with oversight over the IANA functions
exercised by ICANN based on legal agreements between the RIRs and ICANN.
Failing that I would be comfortable with the RIRs contracting such a
function directly with an appropriate party. Both of these options would
of course be based on a legitimate and credible RIPE that evolves as
necessary.

Daniel