On 3/21/11 1:22 PM, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
HI,
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 04:48:33PM +0000, boggits wrote:
On 21 March 2011 16:43, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 April 2011.
Since we've had a joyful time with this proposal before,
It's actually a new and revised one :-) - which purposely only covers global policy, and none of the fun bits about local rules for returning address space or transfers.
It does, but it seems to be more of a tossing of a political football than an effort to find a common ground. There are other aspects of this proposal that have been deemed unacceptable previously.
what happens if we pass it *but* ICANN fail to get the IANA contract this time round?
Since the proposal doesn't actually talk that much about *ICANN* (except for initial adoption of this policy), I'm not sure if we have a problem here - if the ICANN function is moved elsewhere, this policy will go with it.
The agreements that put the global policy process into action are specifically linked to ICANN: http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/2004/10/aso-mou-signed.pdf I don't know if these are transferable, would be transferred, or would be accepted as part of a function transfer. I guess that would be dealt with in any follow-up RFP to facilitate a transfer of the functions -- if that's what happens.
The only problematic bit is timing, that is, we take half a year to finish reaching consensus, and right in the middle the IANA function is no longer at ICANN. When is the contract renewal due?
Or two years. It could get quite confusing to have something in process and have a major change occur such as the moving of the IANA function. Best, -M<