[ga] Re: [Canwereplaceicann] On the RIRs

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Karl and all,

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Fri, 17 May 2002, Mikki Barry wrote:
>
> > DNRC has drawn up a skeletal proposal that we'd appreciate commentary on.
> > It is attached.
>
> Your proposal is roughly in line with something I sent to ICANN's
> "evolution" committee.  http://www.cavebear.com/rw/apfi.htm

  Yes this was and remains a good basis for a NEW-ICANN..
Or maybe WECANN?  >;)

>
>
> Organizations tend to expand their roles.  The remedy is often to create
> distinct entities to handle each job.  (Sometimes this backfires - look in
> the US how the "baby bells" have sometimes made us wish ol' ma Bell were
> back. ;-)

  Well I am not wishing for ol' ma Bell to come back.  The Judge Green
decision in 1980 was the right one...

>
>
> In the case of ICANN, all these jobs should never have been lumped in the
> first place, so separation is simply a return to rationality.

  Very much agreed here.  Dissemination of function in the structure
with some central coordination is the best way and I would argue
the only way to go.  In fact I would say that this is happening
now..

>
>
> And it will force certain functions - protocol parameters comes to mind -
> to demonstrate that they have a reason in their own right for existance.

  Yes, and independent existence at that.

>
>
> There are certain political factors at work here - in the address space
> side of ICANN, the regional address registries (RIRs - ARIN, RIPE, APNIC
> and perhaps a couple of new ones) are looking to be invisible by hiding
> behind an umbrella organization.  ICANN serves that purpose very well,
> particularly since that umbrella is mainly recognized only in DNS
> contexts, thus providing additinal camaflage to the RIRs.  For this
> invisibility the RIRs pay a heafty tithe to ICANN.

  Well yes.  This was expected early on with ICANN.  New RIR's
such as LATNIC feel that as they are structural weak presently
they feel they need the protection supposedly offered by ICANN.
However that protection really does not exist and the $$ such new
RIR's are paying the customer will eventually offset those costs
through increased allocation fees that is being discussed in the
revision discussions of RFC2050 for instance...  The question
is and shall remain for some time is are these adjusted ( Upwardly
dramatically ) for these services...

>
>
> The RIRs have no particular ties to ICANN; they are pretty much left
> alone.  To get their support for a reorganization plan, that plan
> would have to give them at least as good a closet to hide in.

Exactly.  And the costs that the RIR's pay for this "Closet" is
exceedingly high, and will increase much more under the present
regime of the ICANN staff and BoD given Stuart Lynn's recent
revelations as to these operational costs...

>

>
>
> Unfortunately a plan to split ICANN on functional grounds would remove
> some of their cloak of invisibility.  I think that the public would be
> served by removal of that cloak.  But the RIRs may oppose such a plan
> because of this.

  Unless the RIR's can find a better and cheaper closet or funding
method...

>
>
>                 --karl--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Canwereplaceicann mailing list
> Canwereplaceicann@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/canwereplaceicann

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html