Request for Reconsideration Request 00-3 Submitted by: Paul Wilson, APNIC Date: 10 March 2000

Subject: Request for reconsideration
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 18:13:35 +1000
From: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net>

APNIC is submitting this formal request for reconsideration on behalf of the Regional Internet Registries, including APNIC itself, ARIN and RIPE NCC.

This request is written in accordance with the reconsideration policy described on the ICANN web site at:

http://www.icann.org/general/reconsideration.htm

1. Name, address, and contact information for the requesting party, including postal and email addresses

Requesting party:
APNIC Pty Ltd
PO Box 2131
Milton 4064
AUSTRALIA

Contact:  Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net>
Phone:    +61 7 3367 0490
Fax:      +61 7 3367 0482

2. The specific action of ICANN for which review or reconsideration is sought

The specific action for which reconsideration is sought is the inclusion of the term "globally specified applications" in the Contract between ICANN and the United States Government for Performance of the IANA Function (section 12.3, para 4).

3. The date of the action

The date of the action corresponds to the date of signing of the contract, that is 8 Feb 2000.

4. The manner by which the requesting party will be affected by the action

The RIRs contend that the term "globally specified applications" is ambiguous and may be interpreted in such a way as to allow address assignments which are not consistent with globally accepted policies for IP address management.  The result of such assignments could include: utilisation of scarce IP address resources in wasteful or unnecessary ways, establishment of precedents for future allocations with similar results, and circumvention of the currently accepted procedures for allocations of address space through the regional registry system.

5. Whether a temporary stay of the action is requested

A temporary stay of the action is requested.

6. What specific steps the requesting party asks ICANN to take i.e., whether and how the action should be reversed, cancelled, or modified

The RIRs request that no assignment be made by IANA for so-called "globally specified applications", or for any other purpose not specifically and unambiguously defined in this Contract (or any future Contract), until such time as the Address Council is able to determine the policies under which ICANN should make address allocations.

7. The grounds on which the action should be reversed, cancelled, or modified

As described above the ambiguous nature of the term "globally specified applications" may result in allocations which are not permissible under current global policies.  In this case, the contract represents an implicit change in global address policies, outside of the framework of the ASO.

Such a change is contrary to the ICANN Bylaws, which stipulate that the ASO is the primary source of global address policy.

8. Any documents the requesting party wishes to submit in support of its request

The attached email message was sent to ICANN staff and board members on Thursday 2 March 2000 at 19:00 (KST, Korean Standard Time).

===

To: Mike Roberts

Cc: Pindar Wong, Ken Fockler, Rob Blokzijl, Louis Touton, "aso-policy" mailing list

The Regional Internet Registries (APNIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC) wish to express our concern at the signing of the "Contract Between ICANN and the United States Government for Performance of the IANA Function", which has been recently posted to the ICANN web site:

http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-09feb00.htm

We are concerned specifically by the lack of consultation by ICANN with the ASO, Address Council or RIRs themselves prior to signing this agreement, or during the drafting of the related ICANN proposal, which was apparently finalised on 2 Feb 2000:

http://www.icann.org/general/iana-proposal-02feb00.htm

We also express serious concern at the inclusion in this contract of policy provisions which are currently the subject of specific proposals within the ASO framework, and which are therefore not supported by the consensus of the ASO or Internet community.

The ICANN Bylaws define ICANN's responsibility to "refer proposals for substantive policy" to the ASO where the content relates to the ASO's area of responsibility, while the ASO MoU clearly defines the ASO's responsibility for address policy.  These documents are available at:

http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI

http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/aso-mou.html (section 4b)

The RIRs believe that the ICANN/USG Contract contains provisions based on substantive policies related to IP address management which are not currently accepted as consensus policies of either the Address Council or the Internet community.  Specifically:

(1) The policy under which ICANN can make allocations of address space is the subject of a specific proposal raised on the aso-policy mailing list on 20 January 2000 (see http://aso.icann.org/mailing-lists/aso-policy/0001/msg00004.html ), and on which the Address Council has not finished deliberating.

(2) The administration of the "cable network block" 24/8 is the subject of a specific RIR proposal to IANA, which has not been answered.

(3) The term "globally specified applications" is not recognised by the address community, and is clearly subject to very wide interpretation.

While specific policies contained within the new contract are under reconsideration, and while important policy terms of the contract are ambiguous, it is not reasonable for ICANN to assume that such policies are recognised by consensus, nor to enter into significant contracts on the basis of that assumption without consultation with the relevant Supporting Organisation, the ASO.

We therefore request formally that this contract be subject to review by the Address Council prior to its expiry on 30 September 2000, and that no further contract or extension to this contract be undertaken without all policy-related terms being specifically approved by the AC.

Sincerely,

Paul Wilson,
APNIC,
on behalf of APNIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC.

===

END