[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Comment-Aso] Re: Letter from ETSI to ICANN Board re ASO
I agree with Hans (and Erik Huizer).
At 10:48 13/08/99 +0200, Kraaijenbrink, H. (Telemail) wrote:
>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.