[address-policy-wg] 2011-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 mechanisms by the IANA)

On 3/21/11 1:22 PM, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> wrote:

> HI,
> 
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 04:48:33PM +0000, boggits wrote:
>> On 21 March 2011 16:43, Emilio Madaio <emadaio at ripe.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
>>> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 18 April 2011.
>> 
>> Since we've had a joyful time with this proposal before,
> 
> It's actually a new and revised one :-) - which purposely only covers
> global policy, and none of the fun bits about local rules for returning
> address space or transfers.

It does, but it seems to be more of a tossing of a political football than
an effort to find a common ground. There are other aspects of this proposal
that have been deemed unacceptable previously.

>> what happens if we pass it *but* ICANN fail to get the IANA contract
>> this time round?
> 
> Since the proposal doesn't actually talk that much about *ICANN* (except
> for initial adoption of this policy), I'm not sure if we have a problem
> here - if the ICANN function is moved elsewhere, this policy will go with
> it.

The agreements that put the global policy process into action are
specifically linked to ICANN:

http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/2004/10/aso-mou-signed.pdf

I don't know if these are transferable, would be transferred, or would be
accepted as part of a function transfer. I guess that would be dealt with in
any follow-up RFP to facilitate a transfer of the functions --  if that's
what happens.


> 
> The only problematic bit is timing, that is, we take half a year to
> finish reaching consensus, and right in the middle the IANA function
> is no longer at ICANN.   When is the contract renewal due?
> 


Or two years. It could get quite confusing to have something in process and
have a major change occur such as the moving of the IANA function.


Best,

-M<