This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Re: [anti-spam-wg] Fwd: Re: Re: NCC#2007083003 Fwd: DELIVERY FAILURE:
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [anti-spam-wg] Fwd: Re: Re: NCC#2007083003 Fwd: DELIVERY FAILURE:
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [anti-spam-wg] Fwd: Re: Re: NCC#2007083003 Fwd: DELIVERY FAILURE:
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Mon Aug 27 10:25:45 CEST 2007
On 26 Aug 2007, at 23:59, der Mouse wrote: [...] > In any case, my "proposal" is that ICANN impose responsibility along > with authority: as a simple example (restricted just to address space > assignment), it could establish an AUP that RIRs would have to comply > with to keep their assigned space - and then enforce it (this step is > not optional, or the fix won't actually fix anything). Are you suggesting that ICANN should assume the regulatory role that currently sits with sovereign nations? [...] >> Sadly, you have misunderstood the policy development process. IANA >> does not set policy and nor does the RIPE NCC. > > IANA (or perhaps ICANN; I'm not entirely clear where the boundaries > between them lie) *has* to. They have been given the authority; they > have to take the responsibility - or we have the kind of mismatch I > wrote about in the quote above. When they delegate authority, such as > by assigning address space to RIRs, they have to impose corresponding > responsibility, or, again, we have a mismatch. > > If they - IANA/ICANN - accept the authority but not the > responsibility, > as you seem to be saying they have, they system will break. Is > breaking, in the case of the Internet, and will break worse and worse > until the mismatch is fixed. > > Sitting on their thumbs waiting for someone else to solve the problem, > which is what I see them doing, is *not* a responsible thing for > ICANN/IANA to do here. If this is being done because that's what the > procedures in place call for, then the procedures themselves are > broken > and need to be fixed. Please let me know where I can get a copy of the document authorising IANA to regulate in this area. A top down approach is unlikely to work without effective enforcement mechanisms. As you'd like to see an AUP it might be helpful to give us a general idea of what you'd like to see in it and what you'd like to see done when it is not followed. At the moment I'm not sure what you want and that makes it difficult to draft a policy proposal. Regards, Leo Vegoda
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [anti-spam-wg] Fwd: Re: Re: NCC#2007083003 Fwd: DELIVERY FAILURE:
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [anti-spam-wg] Fwd: Re: Re: NCC#2007083003 Fwd: DELIVERY FAILURE:
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]