1) What is global policy ?
There are several dimensions to this discussion: - replace RFC 2050 with a ICANN Address policy document - what is the distinction between regional and global policy - do we understand and appreciate the differences between the regional policies ? - differences between v4 and v6 with respect to the last item - what's the role/work mode of the AC ? to make the definite address
Hans Petter wrote (seeking input): policy,
or to work on issues as they show up - were is the border between a service level contract and policy issues. - are there other operating guidelines for the ICANN - IANA than the global addressing policy ?
Here are some observations: - a growing number of issues in addressing policy are global in scope, not regional. The RIRs recognize this and have met and coordinated policy in a variety areas. I think the number of issues that are global in scope are growing and -- after seeing the debates over IPv6 and HTTP 1.1 name based hosting at a couple of RIR meetings -- I think global consistency is going to become crucial. The RIRs can be one place for people to have input on global addressing issues, but it shouldn't be the only one. - I think that RFC 2050 should be updated or replaced with a document that clearly identifies allocation policies and the exceptional cases (net-24 and the like) that face both established and emerging registries. That ought to be a work item for a "working group" in the ASO. I'd be willing to be a contributor to that effort. - I like to see someone propose a definition of what issues are really regional issues. After all the pool of IPv4/IPv6 addresses is truly a global set of addresses. It seems to me that they should be managed with a consistent set of rules regardless of whether your are in Aruba or Zambia. So, what are the regional issues? I understand that there are administrative issues that distinguish each of the registries -- that makes sense. But why would there be differences in IP address policy? - On global policy, I'd like to see the AC's workflow diagram published as a draft document on http://www.aso.icann.org with an opportunity to comment. Specifically, I'd like to see the mechanisms that are there that support meaningful public and industry participation in addressing policy development. Where in the workflow diagram is the opportunity for interested companies and engineers to raise addressing issues outside the context of the RIRs? It's just my opinion, but that's what you asked for.... mark Mark McFadden Chief Technology Officer Commercial Internet eXchange www.cix.org -- mcfadden@cix.org v: (+1) 608-240-1560 f: (+1) 608-240-1562