[bylaws-coord] Comments on Article 1 of the draft bylaws

[John Curran]

On Apr 6, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Milton Mueller via <bylaws-coord at icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>> wrote:
...
Section 1.1 (a) (iii)
"Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol numbers and Autonomous System numbers." I thought IANA and IETF, not ICANN, do this. ICANN does it only insofar as it is contracted to be the IFO. Does this belong here? Looking forward to the comments of numbers and protocol communities here.

Milton -

The numbers community has two relationships with ICANN; first is the ‘coordination’
function that ICANN plays in reviewing and ratifying global number policies (i.e. the
policies used by the IANA for administration of the top-level unicast number registries),
and the second is as the IANA Numbering Services provider, insofar as it contracted
to provide these services.

The Mission section you reference is further detailed in the sentences that follow and
appears to appropriate cover both of these roles -

(i)    Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol numbers and Autonomous System numbers.  In service of its Mission, ICANN (A) provides registration services and open access for global number registries as requested by the Internet Engineering Task Force (“IETF”) and the Regional Internet Registries (“RIRs”) and (B) facilitates the development of global number registry policies by the affected community and other related tasks as agreed with the RIRs.

Note that this ICANN Mission language ("Coordinates the allocation and assignment
at the top-most level of Internet Protocol numbers…”) was raised by the ASO CCWG
liaisons on the <ianaxfer at nro.net<mailto:ianaxfer at nro.net> list>, and after some discussion, it was determined
to be acceptable the numbers community. On 17 December 2015, the ASO liaisons to
the CCWG affirmed the acceptability of this phrasing in response to an query from
Becky Burr on this point -
<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-December/008926.html>
and the language was ultimately and incorporated into the CCWG final proposal for WS1.

Note the original section was qualified by reference to the “ASO MOU’, and during drafting it
was determined that “facilitates the development of global number registry policies by the affected
community and other related tasks as agreed with the RIRs” sufficed for the same purpose, as
I communicated as the ASO liaison to the bylaws drafting coordination team on 28 March 2016.

If we were drafting ICANN’s bylaws from scratch, would we use the “coordinates” language?
My guess would be that we would not.   However, in the spirit of continuity (and changing only
that which is required), the ICANN mission language for the number identifier systems as
specified in the draft bylaws suffices for the intended purpose.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
(President and CEO, ARIN)
ASO Liaison to the Bylaws Drafting Coordination group
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bylaws-coord/attachments/20160408/c1fc9666/attachment-0001.html>