[discuss] we need to fix what may be broken
drc at virtualized.org
Sat Apr 19 01:35:05 UTC 2014
On Apr 18, 2014, at 3:51 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> Correct, and as a regular participant of the LACNIC processes, I can
> testify this is true. But of course the organization has obligations, or
> is accountable, to the bearer of the NTIA contract to run names, numbers
> and protocols.
No. Simply, no.
The assumption you are making, that the NTIA contract is what provides the authority via some top-down mechanism, is simply incorrect. In reality, what really and truly matters is what the Internet service providers of the world agree to. After all, the RIRs (and the IANA Internet numbers function before it) are merely a convenience established by the network operators to avoid a myriad of bilateral agreements on who "owns" what addresses, something that is obviously not scalable.
A thought experiment: suppose, back in 2002, NTIA imposed upon ICANN (somehow) or the ICANN board chose independently to _not_ recognize LACNIC despite having gained acceptance from the Latin American and Caribbean Internet communities (read: ISPs) as well as the other three RIRs. Do you believe that would somehow invalidate the existence of LACNIC or that LACNIC would not be responsible for allocating addresses in the Latin American and Caribbean regions? (Hint: you might look at why the NRO was established).
In the context of addressing, "bottom up, consensus driven" isn't just a stale cliche: it's actually the truth (for some value of the variable 'consensus' of course).
> No big deal, since the process run by the RIRs who
> coordinate themselves through NRO is beyond any suspicion,technically
> competent and I would be the last to complain.
I wouldn't go that far... :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the discuss