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. ______________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3367 0490/82 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- See you at APRICOT 2000! 28 Feb - 2 Mar http://www.apricot2000.ne.kr ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
