[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Comment-Aso] Letter from ETSI to ICANN Board re ASO

Erik Huizer wrote:
"Let me state that I disagree with the presumption made in the ETSI letter.
I think that Standards bodies and/or telecom operators have multiple
ways to influence the assignment of addresses. First of all through
participating in ETSI, IETF and other standards bodies such that the
standards describe the technical requirements for assignment and
registring parameters. Second of all by becoming members of the RIRs.
Thirdly through their PSO representatives in the ICANN board.

There is no need for yet a fourth way, through direct ASO
participation. On the contrary this would give Telcom operators too
much infuence in the assignment and registration of addresses, which
is not a good situation. I would advice the ICANN board to remain
with the proposal for the ASO initially being the RIRs and to add
aditional independent expertise when needed.

If ICANN should decide to allow ETSI, ITU and/or Telecom operators in
the ASO at the same participatory level as the RIRs I would like to
suggest that it would be better to open up the ASO to all and any
interetsed organizations, to avoid too much influence by one of those

I agree with Erik Huizer and I wish to express my explicit support for the
Draft Proposal for the MoU-based ASO.
I do understand and share some of the observations made by ETSI. The
telecommunications industry -- manufacturers, network operators and service
providers -- is indeed getting more and more involved with IP issues. Where
my view differs is the way this industry should be represented in the ASO.
Two elements are important in this respect.
Firstly the Regional Internet Registries are currently and may be for the
foreseeable future tasked with allocating and administering IPv4 and IPv6
Secondly the RIRs are or will be shortly opening the organization following
the RIPE model. This will ensure that all interested parties can participate
in the policy making of the RIRs and the ASO. If by any chance the RIRs will
not be able to fulfil their role in future policies for IP addresses ICANN
offers ample opportunity to express concern and to consider adding new
I believe the way forward should be to secure adequate participation by ETSI
and others in RIPE on Internet Addressing Policy issues and to secure the
development of the tools, specifications and protocols by the IETF, ETSI,
ITU and other organizations where the PSO may assist in resolving any
differences between the Internet and telecom communities.

Hans Kraaijenbrink