[discuss] we need to fix what may be broken

[Carlos A. Afonso]

On 04/18/2014 10:35 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Carlos,
> 
> 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.

"What truly matters" is what happens in practice, I obviously agree, but
legally the NTIA authority remains.

> 
> 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).

I do not know what would happen if a group of ISPs decided to join
together, create their own "NIR-like" IP distributor and continue to get
their addresses as in the pre-LACNIC era but in a coordinated fashion
(like a business union if you will), in the (very unlikely) event LACNIC
were not approved -- or simply would continue getting their addresses
directly as before. But this is not the point. My point is that the
authority regarding the IANA function remains -- and as I said, no big
deal since there has been no reason to resort to this authority to
settle anything so far.

> 
> 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).

Obvious. I actually keep saying that the RIRs/NRO structure is an
example of how IANA functions can be decentralized for real, and this
practice should be used as a reference in discussing the IANA transition
proposed now by NTIA. But until this transition is completed as
promised, the legal authority remains, including the one over IP number
distribution. No need to hide this and it has become sort of irrelevant
in practice for this case.

> 
>> 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... :)

Ooops... but I really have nothing to complain. LACNIC today also plays
the role of a relevant pluralist Internet governance forum in the
region, and its main role's performance as regional IP registry is
flawless as far as I can see.

frt rgds

--c.a.