Re: [NA-Discuss] Article on CircleID by Chris Grundermann (ISOC CO ALS)
On 25 May 2013, at 00:00, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Good stuff. While so much of the ICANN world focuses on TLDs -- because there is so much loose money floating around that realm -- every now and then we need to be reminded of the other resources under ICANN's stewardship, and the fact that in those realms too there are actors who would diminish the public interest in the management of such resources.
While I agree that this policy move seems dubious, it would be really, really BAD if ICANN tried to tell the RIRs what to do.
It's not a policy yet - it's just a proposal Unfortunately, as anyone who was in the room when it was presented realised, a number of RIPE members appear to support it and cannot understand why both Chris and I opposed it
IP addresses are not like domain names, and ICANN has no leverage over the RIRs. (I can explain why, but the details are tedious.) If RIPE is doing something unwise, and it wouldn't be the first time, it has to be fixed within RIPE's processes.
Yes - agreed. Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Domains ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.co http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Michele, John, This revisits the Google fiber thread of last February. At the time I wrote:
... However, if there is a possible action item it is to consider whether the allocation of scarce resources, specifically IPv4 assets, either those remaining for allocation or those recovered for reallocation or those tendered for transfer as "assets" or "rights", is, consistent with the public interest, determined only by the capitalization of applications for (re)allocation. ...
There are those in ARIN who argue that "the market" is a better allocator than "the public interest", and so are opposed to the continued use of needs based justification for allocation. Similar expressions of preference for "the market" and aversion for "the public interest" exist within other RIRs. Milton Meuller frequently makes this point in a variety of venues, now the ARIN Advisory Council, as do several others, some associated with "address block" sales/lease broker businesses. Has anything changed from when last we communicated via na-discuss? John, assuming I understood you correctly then, and frequently previously, are you are of the view that no advice should be offered to the Corporation by the At Large Advisory Committee or any of its regional constituents on the necessity for retaining the public interest as informing allocation policy because ICANN should not attempt to influence NRO and its RIR member allocation policies? Michele, do you hold the view that fixing an error within RIPE's process must be uninformed by external comment on the public interest issues in the stewardship of unique endpoint identifiers? If so, would you then view the stewardship of address blocks outside of RIPE's responsibility something which, necessarily, RIPE's process, while fixing such an error, must be uninformed by? With respect to both of you I continue to suggest that it is within the responsibility of the At Large bylaws entity to advise not just on unique endpoint identifier policy arising from the GNSO, but also from the ASO, from the point of view that there are public interests in the coordination of globally unique endpoint identifiers, and that this advisory responsibility can be met as disinterestedly (that is, fully informed of the issues, not fully engaged in the process) as the Board itself when it acts from time to time on the advice it is offered. In simple terms, for others not acquainted with the problem, the advice "Selling the last IPv4 block to the highest bidding spammer is not consistent with the public interest." could be offered to the ICANN Board. I make no claims to the utility of the Board's action upon the receipt of such advice. However, it seems likely that the Board will _not_ consider advice _not_ offered when considering the issue. Is silence on the question, even when issue creep and turf issues are granted, in the public interest? Regards to you both, Eric
John, assuming I understood you correctly then, and frequently previously, are you are of the view that no advice should be offered to the Corporation by the At Large Advisory Committee or any of its regional constituents on the necessity for retaining the public interest as informing allocation policy because ICANN should not attempt to influence NRO and its RIR member allocation policies?
ICANN can offer whatever advice it wants, but it shouldn't be surprised when the RIRs ignore it. I entirely agree that ARIN and RIPE have some dubious policies, but they have their own bottom up multistakeholder blah blah processes which is where these fights will happen. For ICANN, which has not distinguished itself as a steward of the public interest, to attempt to lecture them would be, well, amusing. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Well said -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 1:32 PM To: Eric Brunner-Williams Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Article on CircleID by Chris Grundermann (ISOC CO ALS)
John, assuming I understood you correctly then, and frequently previously, are you are of the view that no advice should be offered to the Corporation by the At Large Advisory Committee or any of its regional constituents on the necessity for retaining the public interest as informing allocation policy because ICANN should not attempt to influence NRO and its RIR member allocation policies?
ICANN can offer whatever advice it wants, but it shouldn't be surprised when the RIRs ignore it. I entirely agree that ARIN and RIPE have some dubious policies, but they have their own bottom up multistakeholder blah blah processes which is where these fights will happen. For ICANN, which has not distinguished itself as a steward of the public interest, to attempt to lecture them would be, well, amusing. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On 5/27/13 10:32 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
ICANN can offer whatever advice it wants, but it shouldn't be surprised when the RIRs ignore it.
My memory is that the Board chaired by Vint was not, in general, ignored by the ASO and its regional constituents. My memory is that the Board chaired by Peter enjoyed less ... for want of a better word, affirmative attention by the ASO and its regional constituents, and I don't yet observe a significant change in the attention given the current Board lead by Steve. My point being in two parts -- (1) the responsibility ends with the act of advising, not the consequences of an act by a fully informed autonomous actor, and (2) ICANN is not static over time, and changes with each NomCom and SO/AC selection, e.g., the addition of a seat selected by the At Large Advisory Committee in December 2010.
I entirely agree that ARIN and RIPE have some dubious policies, but they have their own bottom up multistakeholder blah blah processes which is where these fights will happen.
That is where the policy development in each RIR will take place, agreed. However, it is not the only place were statements on the advisability of outcomes relating to any public interest may originate.
For ICANN, which has not distinguished itself as a steward of the public interest, to attempt to lecture them would be, well, amusing.
At present, it is not simply the Board of ICANN which has this given lack of distinguishing (in the affirmative sense) record as a steward of the public interest, but also the At Large Advisory Committee and its regional constituents. Again, regards to you and to Michele in Ireland, Eric
On 27/05/2013 19:32, John R. Levine wrote:
I entirely agree that ARIN and RIPE have some dubious policies, but they have their own bottom up multistakeholder blah blah processes which is where these fights will happen. For ICANN, which has not distinguished itself as a steward of the public interest, to attempt to lecture them would be, well, amusing.
...and I believe that any lecturing would indeed definitely be the wrong way to go about it. Hence the need to follow the Strategy to continue to engage the ASO as the ALAC has recently - but with an overall long term plan in mind: to identify where RALOs can help RIRs and where RIRs can help RALOs. In Beijing the ALAC ExCom had breakfast with the ASO executive which had a representative from each RIR. We explained that whilst some RALOs have already forged good links with their local RIR, others have not yet done so. The next step is to have RALO leaders meet with RIR leaders and I hope that this will be possible in Durban. I hope that the initiative towards this enhanced collaboration will yield more interest from ALSes into the bottom-up RIR processes, thus raising the level of Internet user input in those processes. Sponsorship of select ALS representatives to attend RIR events is already practiced in some regions. I also hope that this enhanced collaboration will also help strengthen the current multi-stakeholder model as a whole, dispelling critics of the RIR model that current IP address allocation & policy is opaque & unfair and needs to be handed over to governments. Kind regards, Olivier
On 5/27/13 1:09 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Hence the need to follow the Strategy to continue to engage the ASO as the ALAC has recently
While useful in its own right, if only because, unique among the SO/AC entities which advise the Board, or hold delegated unique endpoint identifier coordination responsibilities, the ASO and ALAC have regional constituent structure, and nominally, develop policy from these regional constituent elements, forming the respective ASO and ALAC positions of record to the Board from these regionally developed policy recommendations, engagement with the ASO is not the same as advising the Board, and advice to the Board is the purpose stated in the ICANN bylaws of 15 December 2002 ("New Bylaws"), creating an At Large Committee. Thank you for the summary of ExCom/Executive meeting in Beijing, and your personal thoughts on the regional vs jurisdictional allocation of IPv6 blocks. My own thoughts on the subject were conveyed by mail to the convener of the U.S. Delegation to the ITU Meeting on IPv6, in March of 2010, in response to a notice to the Internet Technical Advisory Committee (ITAC). Regards, Eric
So... ICANN has no actual jurisdiction over ccTLDs or RIRs, yet it presents itself to the world as a custodian of Internet names and numbers. (Such is implied in the org's bloody name.) And in the only remaining relevant space it does have some authority -- gTLDs -- it has let itself be captured by the industry it is supposed to be ... overseeing (dare not use the "R" word!). As a natural result, we are witnessing a landscape in which selling as many domains as possible for as much as possible -- regardless of what is needed to maintain Internet trust and stability -- is the name of the game. And people wonder why our outreach sucks. Too much of the rest of the world seems to know that affecting change in this -- from a public interest PoV -- is pretty futile. Arguably it's amazing ICANN At-Large generates as much interest as it does ... On 27 May 2013 07:20, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>wrote:
On 25 May 2013, at 00:00, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Good stuff. While so much of the ICANN world focuses on TLDs -- because there is so much loose money floating around that realm -- every now and then we need to be reminded of the other resources under ICANN's stewardship, and the fact that in those realms too there are actors who would diminish the public interest in the management of such resources.
While I agree that this policy move seems dubious, it would be really, really BAD if ICANN tried to tell the RIRs what to do.
It's not a policy yet - it's just a proposal
Unfortunately, as anyone who was in the room when it was presented realised, a number of RIPE members appear to support it and cannot understand why both Chris and I opposed it
IP addresses are not like domain names, and ICANN has no leverage over
the RIRs. (I can explain why, but the details are tedious.) If RIPE is doing something unwise, and it wouldn't be the first time, it has to be fixed within RIPE's processes.
Yes - agreed.
Regards
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Domains ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.co http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
participants (6)
-
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Evan Leibovitch -
Garth Bruen -
John R. Levine -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond