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
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
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
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
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
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
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
