2011-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 mechanisms by the IANA)
Dear Colleagues, A new Global Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-01/ We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 April 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
On 21 March 2011 16:43, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 April 2011.
Since we've had a joyful time with this proposal before, what happens if we pass it *but* ICANN fail to get the IANA contract this time round? J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
HI, On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 04:48:33PM +0000, boggits wrote:
On 21 March 2011 16:43, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@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.
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 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? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 21 March 2011 17:22, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
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?
Current contract expires 30 September 2011 the Gov started consultation on the renewal in Feb J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
On 3/21/11 1:22 PM, "Gert Doering" <gert@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@ripe.net> wrote:
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@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<
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. ^ by the arin vigilantes
On 21 Mar 2011, at 16:48, boggits wrote:
Since we've had a joyful time with this proposal before, what happens if we pass it *but* ICANN fail to get the IANA contract this time round?
Hopefully nothing. IANA will no doubt continue to implement the consensus policies that have been developed by the community, just as it's always done. I would expect that this would be a key condition of the IANA contract being awarded to some other organisation.
On 21 March 2011 18:05, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 21 Mar 2011, at 16:48, boggits wrote:
Since we've had a joyful time with this proposal before, what happens if we pass it *but* ICANN fail to get the IANA contract this time round?
Hopefully nothing. IANA will no doubt continue to implement the consensus policies that have been developed by the community, just as it's always done. I would expect that this would be a key condition of the IANA contract being awarded to some other organisation.
One would hope so, but the wording of the policy explicitly references the organisation, a minor wordsmithing to take this into account could resolve that... J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
participants (6)
-
boggits -
Emilio Madaio -
Gert Doering -
Hannigan, Martin -
Jim Reid -
Randy Bush