On Apr 12, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Milton L Mueller
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
...
Counsel states:
"ARIN is governed by ICANN ICP-2, which calls for establishment of a single RIR
to serve each region."
Regional exclusivity is one of the more interesting and far-ranging issues
raised by 2014-1. We need to have a clear and honest discussion of it.
Indeed.
Counsel is claiming that ICP-2 requires all usage of numbers to be bound to
exclusive RIR service regions
Milton -
Please provide reference for your statement above; I am unaware of any
statement by ARIN's
Counsel that "ICP-2 requires all usage of numbers to be bound to exclusive
RIR service regions”
i.e. it would appear that you are ascribing statements to ARIN Counsel that
were not actually
made (and ddespite the rather laudable goal of clear and honest discussion.)
For reference, the full paragraph regarding ICP-2 from the staff and legal
assessment follows -
First, ARIN is governed by ICANN ICP-2, which calls for establishment of
a single RIR to serve each region. It further notes that multiple RIRs
serving in single region is likely to lead to difficulty for
co-ordination and co-operation between the RIRs as well as confusion for
the community within the region. The implication of that governance
structure is that each RIR can and should serve its service region. This
policy would allow entities with no real connection to the ARIN's
service region to obtain, for example, increasingly scarce IPv4
resources from ARIN and related registry services. This policy would
result in ARIN effectively providing registry services to other regions,
and thus appears on its face to be inconsistent with ICP-2. ARIN has
obligations to follow the global policy in ICP2, or seek changes in it.
The paragraphs notes that providing resources which are for use entirely
out of region
may be inconsistent with ICP-2; it makes no statement that _all usage_ of
ARIN-issued
resources are bound to the service region. Note that organizations that
receive numbers
resources presently from ARIN often do make some use of them in other
regions.
The statement in the staff and legal assessment is with regarding to
issuing number
resources to a party where it is clear that they are solely for use outside
the ARIN
service region, i.e. this is not a case of incidental use, or someone
repurposing an
address block, but instead ARIN knowingly providing registry services and
resources
to other region.
But this claim has no basis in either ICP-2 itself nor in operational practice.
...
- Even assuming that service regions shouldn’t overlap, ICP-2 does not
articulate or establish a policy regarding use of number resources outside of a
RIR’s service region.
You are correct - ICP-2 does not articulate any policy regarding _use_ of
number
resources outside of a RIR’s service region, however, ICP-2 does identify
issues
that can result from RIRs operating in the same region and thus supports the
actual statements which are within the staff and legal assessment. i.e. to
the effect
that adoption of 2014-1 draft policy would result in ARIN effectively
providing registry
services to other regions, it would appears on its face to be inconsistent
with the
intent and language of ICP-2, as follows below -
"Each region should be served by a single RIR, established under one management
and in one location. The establishment of multiple RIRs in one region is likely
to lead to:
• fragmentation of address space allocated to the region;
• difficulty for co-ordination and co-operation between the RIRs;
• confusion for the community within the region.”
Now it is possible that ICP-2 is rather dated and could use to be refreshed
to look
forward to the future which there is not significant new address
allocations being
made every day and where inter-RIR transfers already pose similar issues;
however,
that is probably a much larger discussion and ICP-2 stands as-is in the
meantime.
- ICP-2 is not a law, and thus raises no legal issues;
ARIN’s compliance with its agreements to other parties can result in legal
issues for
ARIN, and ARIN has an agreement with ICANN (ASO MOU) which directly
incorporates
and references ICP-2.
- ICP-2 is not even a global policy, as its development and adoption by the
ICANN board antedates the global policy development process
ICP-2 is identified in the ASO MOU as containing "agreed requirements and
policies”
It would be helpful to understand if you feel that there is no or nominal
risk to the ARIN
community to setting aside the principles contained in ICP-2; if that is the
case, then it
might be best to simply state that as your position. The guidance from ARIN
Counsel
that we have obligations with respect to ICP-2 is quite clear, but that
doesn’t preclude
the possiblity that there be nominal actual consequence (w.r.t. our relation
with ICANN)
from doing otherwise.
Thank you,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
_______________________________________________
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.
