I'd like also to see something like: "ensure that a uniform policy is adopted by all RIRs" "reserve a pool of IPv4 addresses for future emergency allocation" Emergency to be decided at ICANN level. On 06/11/2007, Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org> wrote:

Carlos sent me some suggestions with the result of ASO workshop, I am working on it, and as soon as I finish that editing, I will share here/on the wiki, and hope to finalize within a week or two.

izumi

2007/11/6, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>:

...

What is the current status of this document? At what stage does ALAC wish to transmit it to the Board?

Thanks, --Wendy

Izumi AIZU wrote:

...

I am in the meeting with the Board and AtLarge community, and will take the floor soon to give some presentation on IPv4-v6.

Here attached is the material. Nick, could you put it on the screen when we do.

izumi

------------------------------------------------------------------------

...

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

...

At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

-- >> Izumi Aizu <<

Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org

-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin franck.martin@gmail.com "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard

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. But maybe worth a try. Though, "decided at ICANN level" could be mis-leading, as most address policies are decided at RIRs/NRO, not by ICANN (Board or ASO) level or at least that is what the current practive with RIRs. OF course, it could be said at IANA level - but then who decideds IANA policy, etc. Actually, there are two separate things. Allocation from RIRs to ISPs are a matter of regional policy, decided by RIRs individually, 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. CHeers, Roberto

"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

Roberto,

Thanks for catching my inaccuracy. I did not mean at all that ICANN was making the policy, but that it is rather the Board, not IANA, who has to approve the policy done by the RIRs. I thought, though, that the later sentence was explaining better (see below). I agree that the best way to influence the policy is to go where the policy is made (the RIRs) rather than where it undergoes formal approval (the Board). This is, IMHO, not very different than to say that to influence a GNSO PGP you go to the GNSO WGs.

Your later words did make things more clear. But I wanted to make it absolutely clear to the broader community just what ICANN's role really is. In many conversations I've had (not with ALAC per se, but in general) many people have rather naive views of how addressing policy works, and to what degree ICANN has the ability to influence it. The delegation of policy to the RIRs is similar in concept to what the GNSO does, except that the board approves GNSO recommendations. The ICANN board is completely uninvolved in RIR policy. The only time ICANN gets involved is with "global policies" as previously defined. The vast majority of PDPs that take place at the RIR level are not of this type. Indeed, even PDP within one RIR mostly stays completely within one RIR. For example, there is no notion of one RIR vetoing the results of a PDP in another region. In the 2.5 years I've been on the board, only 3 or 4 global policies have reached the board. Thomas

2007/11/6, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>:

"Izumi AIZU" <iza@anr.org> writes:

...

2007/11/6, Franck Martin <franck.martin@gmail.com>:

...

I'd like also to see something like:

"ensure that a uniform policy is adopted by all RIRs"

To be clear (as John has said) each RIR has its own PDP and is its own entity. Today, there is no way to enforce that each RIR has a "uniform" policy. This was discussed explicitely at the ARIN meeting last month (as a problem of sorts), where it was pointed out that on IPv6, after all the RIRs adopted the same "globally-coordinated" policy, each RIR started making individual tweaks to it. This is by definition allowed by the RIR/PDP structure, and indeed, people sometimes say that is the an important benefit of having different RIRs - one gets regional diversity.

(Personally, I support that to some degree, except that it can also clash with the notion that we have only one Internet, and that it really is more important to keep the global nature in mind than focussing on regional differences. Local/regional differences can easily be made to the detriment of the global whole.)

Is there any wording that captures both the autonomous approach of each RIR's, and globally coordinated aspects? Or, I might suggest that we do not touch that _at this point_ as this is, to me, the first statement and we may go further as policy discussions go deep or more specific.

...

"reserve a pool of IPv4 addresses for future emergency allocation" Emergency to be decided at ICANN level.

Personally, I am not comfortable with this. for many reasons.

So there is still a large room before reaching the consensus, I guess.

...

Finally, I assume this statement is going to the ASO (or the RIRs) rather than the ICANN board. If this statement is to go to the board, exactly what do you think the ICANN board can do with it? I think folk need to understand what role ICANN plays in this space and how much influence it really has. Making requests that cannot actually be acted upon just leads to frustration (on all sides) and doesn't usually help anyone. :-(

The tone of this statement is generally geared torwards "adderss community" that includes RIRs and NRO/ASO, but also NIRs and LIRs, and to some extenet governments for public policy awareness. ICANN Board? Yes, in a sense we cannot ignore, but at this stage we are NOT asking the Board for specific action. I think that is, at least, too early now. izumi

Thomas

-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

On 06/11/2007, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

...

"ensure that a uniform policy is adopted by all RIRs"

This hasn't been a problem in the past. The details of implementation differ, but the RIR's have all done a good job of requiring justification for IP allocations and handing out IP space in appropriately sized chunks.

I'm worried that for some regions the "TCO" to access scarce IPv4 space may be higher than in other regions. So uniform in a sense of geographic fairness, not in the sense of same policy for all.

"reserve a pool of IPv4 addresses for future emergency allocation" Emergency

...

to be decided at ICANN level.

Honestly, ICANN knows a lot less about IP allocation than the RIRs do. I don't think this is a good idea. If ICANN wants to do something useful for the IP address community, turn up the community pressure to renumber and recycle old underused allocations like MIT's 18/8 and Apple's 17/8.

ICANN level means higher level than RIR level. The decision should be from a global body not a regional one. I don't remember my ICANN organisational structure, but I'm sure you know which body would be the most suited for this role. May be the recovered IPv4 space should go into this "emergency" pool, and the allocation of these IPs would come after the normal space is exhausted, so people have time to see how the secondary and underground market behave and have resources to fight it if needed. Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin franck.martin@gmail.com "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard

On 06/11/2007, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

...

I'm worried that for some regions the "TCO" to access scarce IPv4 space may be higher than in other regions. So uniform in a sense of geographic fairness, not in the sense of same policy for all.

Why not look at what the RIRs actually do rather than guessing?

Yes, I'm looking... It seems that each RIRs has got its own voice and is driven by its own constituency for policy formulation. And then there are the NICs,... NB: I guess you must be an engineer to show so much social skills ;)

...

Honestly, ICANN knows a lot less about IP allocation than the RIRs do. I

...

don't think this is a good idea. If ICANN wants to do something useful for the IP address community, turn up the community pressure to renumber and recycle old underused allocations like MIT's 18/8 and Apple's 17/8.

ICANN level means higher level than RIR level. The decision should be from a global body not a regional one.

Global IP space allocation is not a new issue. See http://www.nro.net.

If you're worried about a black market in IP space, that's going to happen no matter what ICANN does, so I wouldn't waste a lot of time trying to stop it.

It is not about to stop it, but about to lessen its impact, till IPv6 is widely used. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin franck.martin@gmail.com "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard

"ensure that a uniform policy is adopted by all RIRs" Policy with respect to what exactly??? "reserve a pool of IPv4 addresses for future emergency allocation" Emergency to be decided at ICANN level. Who decides what an emergency is?? It sounds like an attempt at delaying the inevitable. Delaying the depletion of IPv4 space is just a delaying tactic. Focussing energy on getting content providers and ISPs to rollout IPv6 as much as possible would, in my view, be a much better way to spend one's time. We're currently working on getting as many of our clients "on board" as possible: http://blog.blacknight.ie/hosting/ipv6/were_going_to_ipv6_the_irish_i.html And of course there's no reason why the sites have to be Irish :) Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845