[address-policy-wg] Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
michael.dillon at bt.com michael.dillon at bt.com
Fri May 11 15:35:25 CEST 2007
> If the draft RFC was resurrected > Would you still think this was an end-run on the RIR process? > > Would you be in support of the draft moving forward? Seems to me that if the draft is not resurrected, there are no ULA addresses for ARIN or RIPE to register, regardless of anything that ARIN or RIPE members might desire. > If you prefer the RIR process, would you be in favor of a global policy > submitted to ARIN that had the provisions of the expired ULA-central > draft, with the modification of removing "cental authority" and clearly > designating how IANA should divide the space among the existing RIRs? Seems to me that the NRO requires that identical policies be PASSED by all of the RIRs before they can be considered "global policy". This is an area where it makes a whole lot of sense to have discussions on several RIR mailing lists before ANY policy proposal is submitted to ANY of the 5 RIRs. I'm not going to quibble with the wording of the draft at this point. I just wonder whether it is appropriate for the RIR mailing lists to be used as a working group for writing Internet drafts? It seems to be a stupid way to proceed because there are at least 5 different mailing lists involved, one of which is primarily in Spanish. Crossposting is not a solution. If people are serious about this central ULA concept then they should get ONE of the RIRs to set up a working group (RIPE would be my first choice, ARIN second) and then have all of this discussion in that working group mailing list. People from all of the 5 RIRs should be invited to the working group by official RIR postings to whatever lists are appropriate. Some RIRs have announcement lists for such things or members-only lists to ensure that the word gets out. Then draft the document in your ONE SINGLE mailing list discussion, submit it to the IETF, and only then, after an agreed draft is formally in the IETF pipeline, submit your global policy proposals to each of the RIRs. The way this is being done right now is pure madness and I would expect that the RIR boards will reject any policies that arise through this UNFAIR AND DISJOINTED process. We have always allowed the IETF to take first place when it comes to creating new number resources. There is no good reason to change this for so-called central-ULA addresses. We do need the technical expertise that is in the IETF to review this before we can make any kind of policy decisions about a registry for these addresses. I know many people on the RIR policy lists are technical experts, but that doesn't count, because these are policy lists, not technical ones. It is one thing for a few technical people to convince a large number of non-technical people about a topic. It is another thing entirely, for those few technical people to convince the large number of technical people who participate in the IETF. It seems to me that the promoters of central-ULA are trying to bypass the IETF's technical review process and I don't like this. --Michael Dillon