Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
On 2007-05-14 16:08, Shane Kerr wrote: Brian, On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 01:34:31PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2007-05-11 23:32, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: The RIRs don't depend on IETF at all, they can define global policies for things that the IETF failed to complete if that's the case. IANA can be instructed the same by the RIRs (which a global policy) than by the IETF itself with an RFC. Not quite. The RIRs have authority delegated to them by IANA, and IANA operates under the terms of its MoU and SLA with the IETF. So the RIRs' scope is to set and implement policy within their delegated authority, which itself has to be within the terms of the IANA MoU and SLA. The RIRs authority comes from their communities, not from IANA. That's what "bottom-up" means. We're both right. It works because there is a wide consensus to both listen to the community and respect the mechanisms in place. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
Brian, On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 01:34:31PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2007-05-11 23:32, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > > >The RIRs don't depend on IETF at all, they can define global > >policies for things that the IETF failed to complete if that's the > >case. IANA can be instructed the same by the RIRs (which a global > >policy) than by the IETF itself with an RFC. > > Not quite. The RIRs have authority delegated to them by IANA, and > IANA operates under the terms of its MoU and SLA with the IETF. So > the RIRs' scope is to set and implement policy within their > delegated authority, which itself has to be within the terms of the > IANA MoU and SLA. The RIRs authority comes from their communities, not from IANA. That's what "bottom-up" means. Many industries need a neutral organisation to do business. Airlines have a system to handle reservations. Many industries use the ISO to set standards (paint colour, carpet thickness, and so on). Universities have accreditation bodies to insure a certain quality of education. And so on. The ISPs of the world need someone to handle resource allocation. The RIRs do that. They also do a bunch of other stuff. Really, the RIRs' scope is whatever their communities think it should be. If the RIRs decide to allocate numbers from dead:beef::/32 based on lunar tides, then the IETF and IANA and ICANN can complain about it all day long, but it's not their decision to make. Of course they can participate in the policy making process like everyone else. :) -- Shane ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
Hi, On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 03:04:19PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: [..] > ICANN can end the MoU at any time, and find a new technical consultant. > The IETF can also end the MoU at any time. But the IETF doesn't have the > authority to appoint a new IANA operator. [..] > The RIR's can do whatever ICANN and the US Government allow them to do. > The IETF _can_ be taken out of the picture if there is cause to do so. Not quite. If ICANN decides "we won't listen to IETF anymore", or "we try to inforce non-useful politics to the RIRs" there is no big reason why the RIRs couldn't just kick ICANN, install the NRO in its place, and change the structure to IETF -> NRO -> RIRs Remember: the existing mechanism works, because the communities (!!) agree that it's a useful way to handle address distribution. The US DoC might have some say for ARIN, but the rest of the world couldn't care less - and I'm sure that the DoC is well aware of this and won't try to break apart working structures. So this is all sort of academic. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
The US DoC has as much say for ARIN as it does for the RIPE NCC. 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. Ray > -Original Message- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:40 AM > To: Dean Anderson > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and > do their own thing? > > Hi, > > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 03:04:19PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: > [..] > > ICANN can end the MoU at any time, and find a new technical > consultant. > > The IETF can also end the MoU at any time. But the IETF doesn't have > the > > authority to appoint a new IANA operator. > [..] > > The RIR's can do whatever ICANN and the US Government allow them to > do. > > The IETF _can_ be taken out of the picture if there is cause to do > so. > > Not quite. If ICANN decides "we won't listen to IETF anymore", or "we > try to inforce non-useful politics to the RIRs" there is no big reason > why the RIRs couldn't just kick ICANN, install the NRO in its place, > and > change the structure to > > IETF -> NRO -> RIRs > > Remember: the existing mechanism works, because the communities (!!) > agree > that it's a useful way to handle address distribution. > > The US DoC might have some say for ARIN, but the rest of the world > couldn't care less - and I'm sure that the DoC is well aware of this > and > won't try to break apart working structures. > > So this is all sort of academic. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 > > SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- > Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
> > > 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. > You seem to be confusing delegation of authority with loss of > authority. > The DoC has contracted the IANA function to ICANN and doesn't involve > itself much, and ultimately plans to get out altogether. However, the > IANA operator (ICANN) then has 'much say'. But the DoC 'get out > altogether' event hasn't happened yet. So you can't write out the DoC > just yet. > Don't how you arrived at that conclusion based on a casual observation. Not writing them out, don't know how you got that. > > 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? 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. Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
> > 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' So it seems that you and Ray are in agreement. All the other details are not terribly relevant to RIR policy discussions because we have processes and structures to make sure that everything is done properly. We have no plans to change any of the structures because at the present time, they seem to work OK. As for the matter that started this, central ULAs, there is not need to worry about who controls what. The fact is that it is customary for new address types to be defined *FIRST* in the IETF and even if there is the possibility of an alternate process, we would not dream of exercising that unless the customary process, via the IETF, had broken down. The IETF process cannot be considered broken just because a draft has expired. In fact, expiry of a draft indicates that the original authors no longer care enough about the matter to progress it further. The WG chair of IPv6 Operations has already offered the v6ops list http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html For those people who *DO* wish to progress a draft for Central ULA addresses. This is a sign that the IETF process is open for business in this case. At this point, I think it is inappropriate to continue the Central ULA discussion on the RIR policy lists. In fact, if any policy were to come out of such a discussion, I would vote against it even though my company could potentially benefit from something like a Central ULA address block. But at the same time, my company supports the IETF process in general and I don't believe we would want to be perceived as usurping the IETF. That is why I would vote against any policy proposal that is not based on an RFC. I urge all of you who have an interest in Central ULA addresses, both pro and con, to take your discussion to the v6ops list. And I urge the people in favour of Central ULA addresses to write an Internet draft explaining just what it is that you want to do. At this point in time, there is no valid draft document so I don't even know what it is that you are discussing. --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
Michael, [ stripping out a lot of content to just say what I want to say... ] On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 10:38:11AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At this point, I think it is inappropriate to continue the Central > ULA discussion on the RIR policy lists. Agreed. > In fact, if any policy were to come out of such a discussion, I > would vote against it [...] Me too (well, the RIPE region doesn't vote on policies, but rather say I would oppose Central ULA proposals). -- Shane ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
