[address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?

On Tue, 15 May 2007, Ray Plzak wrote:

> >
> > > The US DoC has as much say for ARIN as it does for the RIPE NCC.
> >
> > The US DoC, through IANA functions, says, e.g., what IP Address blocks
> > each can allocate.  That seems to qualify as 'much say'
> >
> 
> Didn't say how much say, just said that whatever say it had for ARIN
> it was the same as it had for the RIPE NCC.

Ok. Then we are agreed that "say" is equal. 

I think perhaps I misunderstood your message;  so long as you aren't
disputing that IANA and the DoC has influence over RIRs, we are in
agreement.

I think we are also in agreement that the RIRs and ICANN/IANA can bypass
the IETF by agreeing to do so.  The IETF doesn't have any authority to
stop IANA from making decisions which contradict the IETF advice to
IANA.  The IETF doesn't appoint IANA.

> > > The RIRs existed before ICANN. The relationship between the RIRs
> > > and ICANN is defined in the ASO MoU, an agreement between ICANN on
> > > the one hand and the NRO on behalf of the RIRs on the other.  
> > > There is no mention in the ICANN bylaws of the RIRs.
> >
> > The fallacy of this claim was already stated:
> 
> What is false about those statements?

A fallacy is the false implication of statements supporting a
conclusion.  One doesn't need false statements to have a fallacy---only
a conclusion not supported by the statements.  I thought you were
asserting that there isn't any control by DoC over RIRs, and that those
statements were your justification.  That would be a fallacy, but it
seems in retrospect you weren't disputing control of DoC over RIRs, so I
guess I just misunderstood you.  My apologies.

However, a nit while I'm at it:  The MoU is just a written
understanding, and can be terminated at any time by either party.  The
ICANN bylaws do not need to mention the RIRs for ICANN to contract the
IANA function. The absence of RIRs in ICANN bylaws is irrelevant.

> > RIRs get their authority and IP Address Allocations, etc from IANA.  
> > The fact that RIRs existed before ICANN is irrelevant, because IANA
> > existed before the RIRs. And, as I noted, IANA functions are now
> > contracted to ICANN. Technically, it is in fact the IANA (not ICANN)
> > that has direct control over RIRs. But, as I pointed out, ICANN has
> > full control over IANA functions by contract with the US Government.
> > And, as I pointed out, the IETF is a technical consultant to ICANN.
> > The MoUs are just that: Memoranda of Understanding. MoUs can be
> > terminated, and don't supercede the contracts with the US
> > Government.
> >
> 
> Never intimated anything about authority lines or derivation of
> authority, just pointing out some of the factors in the relationship
> between ICANN and the RIRs.

Sorry, this subject sounds to me like CORE, the MoUvement & January 1998
all over again. I may be overreacting to past history.


		--Dean


-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000