<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Richard Hill <<a href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch" target="_blank">rhill@hill-a.ch</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Chris, So I wonder whether it wouldn't be more efficient for the NRO to publish directly this sort of information, since the RIRs are actually the authoritative sources. </blockquote><div> </div><div>When you say NRO publish, you are also indicating that NRO should do the actual allocation (which is largely the numbers function carried out by IANA). I think whoever allocates should also publish (NRO or anyone could re-publish for all its worth). </div><div>I understand your concern about the possible inconsistency of the information published on the IANA record. Considering that those IPs are now maintained by relevant RIR, it is not clear whether IANA needs to also update his own record (since the RIR is now there to perform such role). I don't think there is actually a defined directive on how IANA handles legacy allocations whose organisation has changed, i think that role is left to regional RIRs. So maybe its not a flaw of operation from IANA but an actual compliance with existing processes. </div><div>Cheers! </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Best, Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: <a href="mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net">cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net</a> > [mailto:<a href="mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net">cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net</a>]On Behalf Of Chris Buckridge > Sent: mercredi, 17. septembre 2014 12:15 > To: RIPE Cooperation Working Group > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Principles for a RIPE Proposal on IANA > Oversight > > <div class=""><div class="h5">> Dear colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC is working closely with the Cooperation Working > Group Co-chairs and members of the RIPE community to draft a > proposal on the future oversight of the IANA functions. > > To assist in the process, we developed a straightforward set of > principles based primarily on the discussions in this working > group at RIPE 68 and on the working group’s mailing list. > Feedback from the working group on the three areas listed below, > on whether to express agreement or otherwise, and on any other > related issues or questions is a vital part of this process. We > would appreciate this feedback by the end of September. > > At the beginning of October, we plan to present a rough draft > proposal to the working group for further discussion ahead of the > RIPE 69 Meeting in London. > > Further background information, including a detailed overview of > the NTIA IANA functions contract and a timeline for the five RIR > community discussion processes, was recently published on the NRO website: > <a href="https://www.nro.net/iana-oversight" target="_blank">https://www.nro.net/iana-oversight</a> > > Best regards, > > Chris Buckridge > RIPE NCC > > -------------- > > Background > > The Regional Internet Registry (RIR) communities have successful, > long-established processes for making Internet number resource > policy at the global and regional levels. These processes are > defined as being open to all interested parties, transparent in > their processes and operations, and driven by the community > themselves in a “bottom-up” fashion via consensus-based > decision-making processes. These processes operate at the > regional level to create policies that address regional needs and > interests. More rarely, they serve to create global policies > regarding the top level of the Internet number registration > hierarchy. These global policies are implemented by the IANA > operator, a role currently fulfilled by ICANN. > > RIR policy development processes pre-date ICANN and the current > NTIA IANA functions contract. The NTIA plays no explicit role in > making or directing policy for the operation of those IANA > functions relating to Internet number resources. The current > processes and structures have resulted in excellent operation of > the IANA functions relating to Internet number administration by > ICANN, under policy direction from the RIR communities. > > > 1. The following are priorities for the RIPE community: > > - There should be minimal operational change. The current > processes for IANA operation and related policy-making are > effective and allow for the participation of all interested parties. > - Any new oversight mechanism should incorporate and build on > the existing RIR community policy-making processes. > - The RIR communities are ultimately accountable for the > management of those IANA functions relating to management of the > global Internet number resource pools, and this should be > reflected in any new oversight mechanisms defined in a global > proposal to NTIA. > > > 2. A model for IANA oversight endorsed by the RIPE community > should include the following elements: > > - ICANN has historically managed operation of the IANA > functions well, and should continue to do so at this time. > - The IANA functions operator must be answerable and > accountable to the communities that it serves. The number > resource community is represented in such accountability > processes by the membership-based RIR organisations. > - Funding arrangements to cover the staff, equipment and other > operational costs associated with operation of the IANA functions > should be transparent and stable. > - Efforts should be made to maintain the IANA functions as a > “bundle”, managed by a single operator. > - This does not necessarily imply a single, central point of > oversight authority. Any proposed oversight mechanism should > reflect the legitimate authority of different communities for > specific functions as they relate to number resources, domain > names and protocol parameters. > > > 3. RIPE community input to the IANA Stewardship Transition > Coordination Group (ICG), which is responsible for developing a > global proposal to NTIA, will be developed according to the > following process: > > - Discussion in the RIPE community is centralised in the RIPE > Cooperation Working Group. > - The RIPE community discussion will aim to produce an output > document by 1 December 2014. > - The RIPE Cooperation Working Group Chairs will be responsible > for assessing community consensus on this output document. > - This RIPE output document will be sent to the Number Resource > Organization Executive Council (made up of the five RIR CEOs), > who will compile a single NRO input to the ICG. > - A representative of the NRO Number Council will confirm that > text compiled by the NRO EC accurately reflects the output of the > five RIR community discussions. > - The NRO proposal will be shared with the five RIR communities > ahead of submission to the ICG. > - Any global proposal produced by the ICG will be conveyed back > to the RIPE community via the RIPE Cooperation Working Group to > allow for discussion of any objections or concerns. > </div></div></blockquote></div> -- <div dir="ltr">------------------------------------------------------------------------ <blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;font-family:garamond,serif"> Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: <a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a> Mobile: <a value="+2348035233535">+2348035233535</a> alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453" target="_blank"> </a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a> <blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The key to understanding is humility - my view ! </blockquote></blockquote> </div> </div></div>