Dear all, allow me some comments on the draft minutes:
Danniel Karrenberg recalled that this is not the first time this discussion has taken place,
... and that the RIPE community has been
vocal in its preference for the US government stepping away from this oversight role since the late 1990s.
I do not recall making reference to specific positions. Rather I said that "the RIPE community has taken an active part in the discussion around the formation of ICANN and the organisation and delivery of IANA services.
... He stressed the success of the RIR community processes in policy-making ...
I recall specifically mentioning the "legitimacy and credibility" of our policy making process ... and argued against
over-complicating the situation. He also noted that the IANA is three distinct groups of functions (number resources, the DNS root zone and protocol parameters), and the RIPE community discussions should focus primarily on the number resource functions; if difficulties in defining governance processes for the DNS root zone threaten to derail the oversight transition process, the community should be explicitly prepared to propose unbundling those functions and taking oversight of the numbering functions.
...
Daniel Karrenberg argued that the community does not need another level of oversight for protection, and noted that the RIR communities already have solid agreements in place with ICANN, which ICANN cannot unilaterally change. He stressed the importance (and his optimism) of achieving community consensus on a proposal.
...
He again suggested that the RIR communities should make every effort to unlink the number-related IANA functions from the DNS.
I most definitely did not utter the last sentence. I recall saying that "the RIPE community should avoid being drawn into the discussions about governance and oversight of DNS root zone management and stick to its purview of Internet number resources." So far about the minutes. --- For clarity let me re-state my advice to the community and this WG in particular once more: - This discussion is not new. It is part of our ongoing engagement in the development of ICANN and IANA. Those who may not be aware of this engagement should make themselves aware for continuity's sake. This is all well documented in RIPE minutes and RIPE NCC/NRO statements. We are stronger when we are consistent and refer back to long standing positions. We should see this discussion as an evolution rather than such a Big Deal(TM) and stick to our principles. - With respect to the IANA services, RIPE is about Internet number resources only, which includes the associated reverse DNS delegations. We need to avoid being drawn into discussions about governance and oversight of DNS root zone maintenance or the protocol parameters. There are other fora for this. Straying into these areas will confuse our discussion and undermine the legitimacy of our process. Detail: Technically the RIPE NCC is also a customer of IANA whenever we need to change the address(es) of k.root-servers.net. Under the current IANA arrangements this has happened exactly once, when we added an IPv6 address; that worked flawlessly and it is not likely to happen again in the foreseeable future. So we could discuss this aspect if we feel it is really necessary. ;-) - The RIPE governance process has a longer history than ICANN and a much longer standing than the current IANA arrangements. We have considerable credibility and legitimacy. There are no serious challenges to the legitimacy of the number resource policy process of RIPE and the other RIRs. We have successfully managed the run-out of IPv4 address space, a finite resource! We should be proud of our achievements and be assertive about oversight when necessary. - We should be prepared to to separate the number resource aspects of the IANA service and create our own mechanism for this part of the IANA service *if, and only if,* the DNS root zone oversight discussions threaten to derail a consensus about the evolution of IANA or push it in a direction that is unacceptable to us. The IETF has already taken such a position w.r.t. the protocol parameter part of the IANA service. While I am no lawyer and do not play one on TV either ;-), personally I would be very comfortable with oversight over the IANA functions exercised by ICANN based on legal agreements between the RIRs and ICANN. Failing that I would be comfortable with the RIRs contracting such a function directly with an appropriate party. Both of these options would of course be based on a legitimate and credible RIPE that evolves as necessary. Daniel