Re: [address-policy-wg] WG Charter
Hans Petter,
I would also mention the role of the working group in - co-ordinating policies with other RIRs - address policy issues that have to do with IANA/ICANN
What about: The Address Policy WG develops policies relating to the management and registration of Internet resources (currently IPv4, IPv6 and AS Numbers) by the RIPE NCC and its LIRs within the RIPE NCC service region. It also co-ordinates policies with the other RIR communities and liaises with the IANA and ICANN on address policy issues. The Address Policy WG meets three times a year at RIPE meetings and has an open (publicly archived) mailing list. Anyone with an interest in Internet numbering issues is welcome to observe, participate and contribute to the WG. -hph
On 11.08 20:47, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
The Address Policy WG develops policies relating to the management and registration of Internet resources (currently IPv4, IPv6 and AS Numbers) by the RIPE NCC and its LIRs within the RIPE NCC service region. It also co-ordinates policies with the other RIR communities and liaises with the IANA and ICANN on address policy issues. The Address Policy WG meets three times a year at RIPE meetings and has an open (publicly archived) mailing list. Anyone with an interest in Internet numbering issues is welcome to observe, participate and contribute to the WG.
Nit: IPv4 and IPv6 *addresses* or shorter "Internet addresses". Suggestion: replace "Internet resources ....)" by "Internet addresses and routing idetifiers". One can always add other stuff if necessary. Nit: mentioning IANA is sufficient, no need to mention ICANN. Suggestion: replace "It also .... issues." with "The WG coordinates its work with the appropriate bodies of the other RIRs and the IANA." Daniel
Nits: 1. Should be Internet Number Resources 2. IANA does not exist as an organization. ICANN performs the IANA functions under a contract with the US DoC. There is nothing to preclude any other organization to perform all or part of this function. Under the current circumstances that could be either as a subcontractor to ICANN under the current contract or as a separate contractor to the US DoC. Point 2 has some interesting scenarios if looked at in the long run. Ray
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 9:58 AM To: Hans Petter Holen Cc: Rob Blokzijl; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] WG Charter
On 11.08 20:47, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
The Address Policy WG develops policies relating to the management and registration of Internet resources (currently IPv4, IPv6 and AS Numbers) by the RIPE NCC and its LIRs within the RIPE NCC service region. It also co-ordinates policies with the other RIR communities and liaises with the IANA and ICANN on address policy issues. The Address Policy WG meets three times a year at RIPE meetings and has an open (publicly archived) mailing list. Anyone with an interest in Internet numbering issues is welcome to observe, participate and contribute to the WG.
Nit: IPv4 and IPv6 *addresses* or shorter "Internet addresses".
Suggestion: replace "Internet resources ....)" by "Internet addresses and routing idetifiers". One can always add other stuff if necessary.
Nit: mentioning IANA is sufficient, no need to mention ICANN.
Suggestion: replace "It also .... issues." with "The WG coordinates its work with the appropriate bodies of the other RIRs and the IANA."
Daniel
On 31.08 16:44, Ray Plzak wrote:
2. IANA does not exist as an organization. ICANN performs the IANA functions under a contract with the US DoC. There is nothing to preclude any other organization to perform all or part of this function. Under the current circumstances that could be either as a subcontractor to ICANN under the current contract or as a separate contractor to the US DoC.
Point 2 has some interesting scenarios if looked at in the long run.
I read that to mean that you are in agreement with my suggestion. Correct? Daniel
Not exactly. I would say that instead of IANA that it would be the organization performing the IP Number Resouce Management of the IANA function. More fundamentally why would this working group do this? The policy relationship between IANA and the RIRs is a matter of global policy. It would seem to me that this would be an interface between the RIRs (in this case RIPE NCC amongst others) and a body concerned with global policy. In current circumstances that would be the ASO AC to the ICANN Board, but of course until the RIRs and ICANN can reach agreement on an ASO MoU, that can change as well. Ray "The WG coordinates its work with the appropriate bodies of the other RIRs and the IANA."
-----Original Message----- From: 'Daniel Karrenberg' [mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net] Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 5:34 PM To: Ray Plzak Cc: 'Hans Petter Holen'; 'Rob Blokzijl'; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] WG Charter
On 31.08 16:44, Ray Plzak wrote:
2. IANA does not exist as an organization. ICANN performs the IANA functions under a contract with the US DoC. There is nothing to preclude any other organization to perform all or part of
this function.
Under the current circumstances that could be either as a subcontractor to ICANN under the current contract or as a separate contractor to the US DoC.
Point 2 has some interesting scenarios if looked at in the long run.
I read that to mean that you are in agreement with my suggestion. Correct?
Daniel
participants (4)
-
'Daniel Karrenberg' -
Daniel Karrenberg
-
Hans Petter Holen -
Ray Plzak