"Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@icann.org> writes:
Izumi AIZU wrote:
"reserve a pool of IPv4 addresses for future emergency allocation" Emergency to be decided at ICANN level.
This one is OK with me, but I heard that similar proposal was not accepted by RIRs and hard to get consensus.
See my other response. I think there would be a number of challenges in having ICANN jumping in here.
Actually, there are two separate things. Allocation from RIRs to ISPs are a matter of regional policy, decided by RIRs individually,
Correct. As defined by each RIR's PDP.
while allocation from IANA to RIRs is a matter of general policy, and is the responsibility of the ICANN Board. IANA deals with the practical implementation of the policy, but does not decide the policy. The policy is decided by RIRs/NRO, and has to be approved by the ICANN Board.
Let's be careful with the wording here. I think that saying "is the responsibility of the ICANN board" overstates the degree of influence ICANN actually has. In fact, IANA-RIR policy is currently made within the RIRs, via a "global policy" as defined in http://www.nro.net/documents/nro4.html. ICANN's role here is defined in http://www.icann.org/general/review-procedures-pgp.html. It should be noted that the Board's role here is really an "end step" of sorts, and the bar for saying "no" or requesting changes is pretty high. (E.g., asking for revisions would require going back to each RIR for approval, which can easily take a year.) So, if ICANN wanted to influence policy development, it really needs to participate in PDP's at the RIR level, much in the way others do (and much as ALAC should do IMO). Thomas