Milton -
Note that we're going to have a public discussion of the process to be used
in
this region next month at the ARIN meeting, and your input is most welcome
in helping develop the process to be used.
We will need a process for this region that works within an overall timeline
for
the RIR community, and must include receiving initial input, integration
within
the region, then consolidation amongst the RIRs, overall RIR community
review,
all in order to support a timely submission to the ICG. There is an overall
timeline
here that you may find helpful -
<https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/timeline-for-rirs-engagement-in-iana-stewardship-transition-process>
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
On Sep 8, 2014, at 5:48 PM, "Milton L Mueller"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Today the IANA stewardship coordination
group<https://www.icann.org/stewardship/coordination-group> (ICG) released a
request for proposals for changing the IANA in ways needed to compensate for
the end of US government oversight.
I am assuming that since the RIRs were signatories to the Montevideo
Declaration<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en>, which
called for globalization of the IANA functions, that most of their members and
participants support the IANA transition and want to see it happen
expeditiously.
The ICG, of which I am a member, has proposed a very open and bottom up method
for the transition. It has broken the problem down into three types of IANA
‘customers’ – names, numbers and protocols – and has asked each of these
operational communities to convene open, transparent processes to develop
proposals with widespread public support for a new IANA that can function
without oversight by the US government.
The IETF has convened a reasonably open process, creating a mailing list
([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) and chartering a working
group<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ianaplan/charter/> to develop a proposal.
Likewise, the names community has chartered a cross-community working
group<https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/draft-charter-ccwg-iana-stewardship-21aug14-en.pdf>,
led by the GNSO and CCNSO, to develop a names proposal.
I am sorry to report that ARIN and the NRO have not risen to this challenge
yet. We have not seen any call for input about how to convene an open process –
something which is _required_ by both NTIA and the ICG.
The RIR’s proposed “process” for developing a proposal has never been
discussed among the ARIN Advisory Council, nor has it been announced or raised
on the ARIN PPML. There was never a discussion as to whether the process should
be convened at the global level or at the regional level. No mailing list for
general discussion of that specific topic has been convened by the RIRs as a
whole. The web page ARIN has thrown together about the
transition<http://teamarin.net/education/internet-governance/iana-globalization/>
does not describe or propose a process. There seem to be no methods for
interested stakeholders to submit proposals for the IANA transition to the RIR
community, and no plans for receiving public comment about their draft proposal.
Instead, the assumption seems to be that ARIN, and APNIC and other RIRs, will
collect random “input” from poorly publicized face to face sessions at their
regional meetings, and then their staff will decide what the proposal will be.
There seem to be no plans for collating and analyzing that input. There are not
even plans for opening the RIRs proposals to public omment.
Even worse than ARIN’s vacuum, APNIC has started off its ”consultation” process
by putting in front of the community the staff’s own view as to how the new
IANA should look, which calls into question the neutrality of the process.
These process failings make the RIR’s proposed transition proposal extremely
vulnerable to challenge. Any aspect of the IANA transition that cannot
demonstrate a fair process and broad support from across the spectrum of
stakeholder groups is likely to attract criticism and to fail the NTIA’s test.
I am urging the RIRs to wake up and take this transition process more
seriously. In my opinion, the following criteria need to be met before the RIRs
can claim to have run a legitimate process:
1) There must be a global, open mailing list devoted specifically to the
numbers part of the IANA transition. Not existing regional lists.
2) The draft proposal developed jointly by the RIRs must explicitly
respond to public input
3) The final proposal developed jointly by the RIRs must be subject to
public comment on a global basis before it is submitted to the ICG
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
