IANA bylaws seeks collective dictatorship on Address council? Was[ifwp] Re: new iana draft bylaws

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Michael and all,

Michael Dillon wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Jim Dixon wrote:
>
> > This whole system works because everyone cooperates.  Its a global
> > system so we need cooperation on a global scale.  The focal point
> > of that cooperation is IANA.  It would take a brave man indeed to
> > suggest replacing IANA with something else in the absence of a real
> > need for doing so.
>
> This is precisely my point. The existing relationship between RIRs and the
> IANA works.

  Works for whom Michael?  Certainly not for many of the regional and local
ISP's.  This is particularly true of ARIN.  This has been pointed out over and
over again
by many on this list and also made very apparent to the IANA itself.  It was even
eluded to in the White Paper.

  WHAT THE nIANA/IANA WANTS IS TO FORM A COLLECTIVE
DICTATORSHIP IN THE NEWCO'S ADDRESS COUNCIL.

  To wit from http://www.iana.org/bylaws2.html:
Section 4.     DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFICATIONS

     A.  There shall at least be the following Supporting Organizations:

          (i) The Address Supporting Organization shall be composed of
          representatives from regional Internet address registries and
          other entities with legitimate interests in these issues, as
          determined by the Address Supporting Organization and
          approved by the Board.  The Address Supporting Organization
          shall create an Address Council to make recommendations to
          the Board regarding the operation, assignment and
          management of Internet addresses and other related subjects;

> It is one thing to be discussing some formalization of that
> relationship and I don't think that ARIN, RIPE or APNIC would object to
> such a formalization. However, what some people are proposing is to start
> from scratch, create a whole new IANA that is a very different sort of
> organization from the old one and subsume the RIRs into that organization
> with a radically different relationship between them and the new IANA.

  This may or may not be a wise adjustment to the status quo in accordance with
many
that have posted comments to this list and to the IANA comments section on their
site.  What certainly is evident is that the RIR's have allot of adjustments to
make.

> This radical overthrow of the working system is what I am opposed to and
> what I believe the RIRs will not accept.

  If they do not except this possibility than of course they have that choice to
do so,but may find that choice less than palatable to the long term survival to
their
existence should that be necessary, which it should not.  What IS or SHOULD
be necessary is that the RIR's must be accountable to the Stakeholders/Membership
first and foremost.

> Of course, I am not speaking on
> behalf of the RIRs, simply from my own knowledge of how the RIRs are
> operated and how they relate to the existing IANA. So don't accuse ARIN
> because of my analysis of the situation.

  Certainly not!

>
>
> > > This light workload is precisely why the RIRs don't need IANA. If the new
> > > IANA turns out to be more about powermongering and making profits from
> > > registering domain names, then the RIRs could easily work together on
> > > their own.
> >
> > Of course.  But they require the consent of the ISPs for this.  And
> > if the ISPs feel that the RIRs are just doing this as a power play,
> > they can find their heads on the chopping blocks instead.
>
> Of course. In fact the ISP industry is rather sensitive to power issues
> and that sensitivity could lead to a rejection of the new IANA.

  Again it is fine if those RIR's wish to reject the NewCo or the nIANA.  But if
they do they may no longer be acting as an IP registry or receive allocations
from the IANA/nIANA should the Stakeholders/Members along with the
Address council choose to take that action or their policies dictate that this
would be the results of the RIR not to take direction based upon those
policies that the Address council along with the Stakeholders/Membership
choose should be enacted at any time.

> One way
> that ISPs could express such a rejection would be to act through their
> Regional IP Registries. I am not suggesting at all that the RIRs would go
> off in left field against the wishes of their ISP members, rather I am
> suggesting that the ISP members of the RIRs may end up demanding that the
> RIRs not join the new IANA structure.

  THis is of course those regional IP registries choice. And again these LIR's
orRIR's can of course be replaced or refused any more new IP allocations should
the
Address council alone with the wishes of the Stakeholders/Members either through
policy requirements or by special resolution submitted by any group of
Stakeholders/Members and presented to the stakeholders/members by the
Address council for a vote.

> The new IANA proposal that NSI
> released yesterday is particularly dangerous in that regard because of its
> suggestion that the new IANA should be dominated by the domain name
> industry.

  The Domain name industry certainly has a stake in the IP allocation and RIR
practices as we all know.

>
>
> > > And the routing of IP packets is what creates IP addresses. Without
> > > routing, there are no addresses. IP addresses are numbers that are used to
> > > route packets to their destination. ISPs run routing protocols that they
> > > use to announce the existence of IP address blocks and tell other ISPs
> > > where packets with those addresses should be sent.
> >
> > I do this for a living.  I can assure you that IP addresses are not
> > created by routing.
>
> You are being pedantic. In order for an IP address block to exist as a
> part of the global Internet, an ISP must announce that address block using
> the BGP routing protocol. This act is what brings the address block into
> existence on the global Internet and tells other ISPs where the address
> block is located. Neither IANA nor the RIRs are necessary for a BGP
> announcement to be made and accepted. Yes, some coordination is necessary
> to prevent chaos but the actual turning on and turning off of addresses is
> done by individual ISPs, not by some central registry.
>
> > This aggregation
> > is actually done by the ISPs.  The role of the RIRs in this is
> > allocating address space to ISPs in blocks that are aligned for easy
> > aggregation.
>
> Thank you for pointing this out. This is another way in which the ISPs are
> actually more in control of the situation than a cursory non-technical
> examination of the situation would show.
>
> > > Why must the new IANA be a central concentration of power? Why can't it
> > > simply be the coordinating body for the RIRs, for the standards
> > > committees, for the domain name system, and so on? The latest proposal for
> > > a new IANA from NSI has domain name interests dominating the whole
> > > corporation. Why would the RIRs want to submit to such an organization?
> > > If domain name issues dominate the new IANA as NSI has proposed, then I
> > > expect that the RIRs and the IETF will go their own ways.
> >
> > That is indeed a possibility, and it is more or less what I suggested
> > in my "IANA lite" proposal in response to the Green Paper
> > (http://www.euroispa.org/papers/dns2.html).
> >
> > However, I don't see IANA as a central concentration of power.  I see
> > it as it sees itself, as a central coordination point.  One of the
> > things that it coordinates is the allocation of IP address space.
> >
> > IANA is a service organization.  Providing a service does confer power
> > of a certain sort, but it is the power that comes from being convenient.
> > Yes, IANA can be replaced, as can the RIRs.  But so long as everyone
> > involved is sensible, there is every reason to believe that things
> > will go on as they have so far.
>
> Then I think that you and I agree, in general, on what sort of
> organization the new IANA should be. Let us hope that other people will
> realize that there is more to be gained by reaching a consensus on a
> cooperative coordinator for the Internet than a dictatorial powerbroker.

  We agree that there should be a cooperative coordinator for the Internet
industry,
especially as it relates to IP allocations and DNS.  Where there is a great
difference
is that which way that cooperation flows from.  A COLLECTIVE DICTATORSHIP
POWERBROKER that is left unchecked and unrestrained will be corrupt absolutely.
And this is what the nIANA bylaws would seek to create.  See
http://www.iana.org/bylaws2.html  (Section 4 (i) )

>
>
> --
> Michael Dillon                 -               Internet & ISP Consulting
> Memra Communications Inc.      -               E-mail: michael@memra.com
> Check the website for my Internet World articles -  http://www.memra.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com