[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 5 - Mission - 3rd reading conclusions

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 25/01/2016 16:39, Burr, Becky wrote:
> Update in advance of call:
> 
> The ASO language still seems to be something of a moving target. 

I have a slightly orthogonal concern (not related to the difference
between your versions):

> Further, it ratifies, at the global level, policies related to these IP
> and AS numbers and developed according to the ICANN Address Supporting
> Organization (ASO) Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and
> the Number Resource Organization dated 21 October, 2004, as may be
> amended from time to time in accordance with its terms.

As I understand it, the source of authority for IP numbers policy is the
Regional Internet Registries (who are represented by the NRO), not
ICANN. ICANN simply acts as to faciliate coordination for a subset of IP
addressing policy, specifically those polices that need to be ratified
at a global level (because they affect multiple regions).

It is worth noting that the scope of the MoU is explicitly limited to
"Internet number resource policies that have the agreement of all RIRs
according to their policy development processes and ICANN, and require
specific actions or outcomes on the part of IANA or any other external
ICANN-related body in order to be implemented". Other Internet number
resource policies are therefore out of scope of the MoU.
https://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm

Does the above Bylaws language reflect the sense that the RIRs are the
source of authority, and that ICANN's involvement derives from the MoU?
I am not so sure that it does.

I am a little concerned that with this language it might be argued that
ICANN (as the ratifier) is the source of authority, but that it has
delegated policy formation to the RIRs through the MoU, while retaining
a degree of control, namely requiring the RIRs to act in accordance with
its terms.

This may seem an esoteric point, but it would be quite pertinent if the
MoU were to terminate. Would ICANN be left with control of number
resource policy, and free to delegate it to a replacement for the NRO?
Or would it be left with the RIRs, who would be free to create a
replacement for the ASO to perform the function of ratification at a
global level?

I do not think we should risk introducing any ambiguity about this
important issue.

I am not sure of the precise wording for a fix, but it might look
something like this:

"Further, it ratifies, at the global level, policies related to these IP
and AS numbers when a requested by the Number Resource Organization to
perform that function."

The MoU would then simply constitute the NRO's request, and the terms
thereof.

I look forward to your comments,

Malcolm.

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
       Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA