[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Need show of support for ASO proposal
> The ICANN will be voting on whether to adopt the ASO proposal submitted by
> the RIRs
> during the Santiago, Chile ICANN meeting this month. It's very important
> that ICANN
> sees the support for this document from the ARIN members.
> Kim Hubbard
While this is a good document, I still see several areas that could
be considered weaknesses. There are three, one of which another ARIN
AC member raised for me at the last ASO meeting in Oslo (the meeting
was held exactly the same time as the WG meeting I had to be in)
- There is no buy-in from the legecy address space delegates.
i.e. ARIN et.al. claim to be open and defacto include historical
delegates as members but have the legecy delegates ever accepted
the "privleges of membership"? If so, where is this documented?
- The process is built on a Catch-22 basis. As "bottom-up", member
driven organizations, the RIR's are simply reactive. Historically,
the IANA had, and exercised, the perogative for top-down changes.
This was to implement process ideas for new technology, run experiments
and meet novel new ideas where there was no existing base or basis
for performing a bottom up agreement.
The RIR proposal disallows such flexablity, effectivly stiffling the
rapid response that is occasionally needed to ensure continued
growth of the Internet. Historically, there was top-down, with
bottom-up being added. This proposal removes completly the top-down
capability. Is this such a good idea?
- There appear to be discrepencies between the ICANN bylaws and the
RIR proposal, to wit:
has the following text:
ARTICLE VI-A: THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
while the ASO draft states:
Proposal for an MOU-based Address Supporting Organization within ICANN
July 23, 1999
d. Address Policy Development.
The ICANN bylaws assign to the ASO the responsibility for the development of
global policies relating to the following areas:
I don't see where the ICANN ByLaws do any such thing.
This may indicate a desire for wording to be added to the ICANN
bylaws. It is potentially confusing to the average follower
of the RIRs.
Perhaps an alternate wording would ease my concerns. Both the DNSO
MOU (signed) and the PSO MOU (signed) have the following words:
PSO (from the ID dated July 1999, page 6, Section 4.a)
Advisory Role. The Protocol Council will advise the ICANN Board...
DNSO (from the online ICANN bylaws)
Section 1: DESCRIPTION
(a) The DNSO shall advise the Board with respect to policy issues relating to the Domain Name System.
Note that both the PSO and the DNSO clearly recognise their advisory
I'll offer, as a concerned individual, the following text change
for 2.d of the 23July1999 RIR Proposal:
d. Address Policy Development.
The ASO shall advise the ICANN Board with respect to issues relating to
the development of policies in the following areas:
If these concerns can be clarified/rectified, then I should have no
trouble endorsing this proposal.
Thanks for taking the time to peruse and think about these issues.