[lir-wg] ICANN Reform

--On 8. oktober 2002 11:06 +0900 Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:

> to paraphrase from a private conversation:
>
> note that the iana function is the only formal link between the
> ietf and the registries, and we should be careful of what we break.
> the ietf does not want to start writing rir (and N other fiefdoms)
> consideration sections in rfcs.

So a design criteria for whatever scenario we are looking at should be to 
maintain this link. (ie co-organisation of the IETF-IANA function and the 
RIR-IANA function.

> there are a number of different roles of the iana function, what
> different parties need from the iana function, and their/our
> respective relationships to and through the iana.  the rir position
> seems to be to break away from the iana.  the ietf position, such
> as it is, seems more to coordinate the non-dnso iana functions in
> the iana in a way well detached from icann dnso politics.

I think the root of the concern is the strong link between the percived de 
facto policy makers (ICANN staff) and the IANA staff.

I belive this concern is only true if it is in fact so that ICANN staff 
makes policy desicions (or suggests them to the board who ratifies them 
without public process)

The cause for this concern is that while some of us see something as a 
policy desicion others don't.

The very fundamental question is perhaps:
- Are there any desicions at all to be taken by ICANN which does not 
require an open transparent process ?

Looking carefully at that question I realise that it can be generalized:
- Are there any desicions at all to be taken by X which does not require an 
open transparent process ?

where X = {ICANN, RIPE NCC, ARIN, APNIC, IETF, ASO, ...}

and this it is where it gets interesting:
- the concern is exactly the same at both sides of the ICANN vs RIR 
discussion...

-hph