[governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Hi McTim,

On 07/02/2012 10:08 PM, McTim wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>> Hi McTIm & John,
>>
>> Yes, I read the NRO-ICANN MouU when it was issued +or- eight years ago
>> -- could not find any update of it, except an internal MoU AfriNIC-NRO
>> to account for the inclusion of the latest RIR.
>>
>> If you look at the IANA contract (the statement of work), and the
>> Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), both correctly consider ICANN as the
>> *only* official counterpart regarding governance of the logical infra.
> 
> The docs might, but the FBI, IRS, RCMP, et.al., send folk to ARIN meetings.

Practices and wishes are one thing, institutional accountability is
another. And I am always puzzled by how much Icann (and Arin, I learn
now) relies on law enforcers instead of law makers (who are supposed to
determine what LEAs can and cannot do) to advise on its policies.

> 
> 
>> There is no mention of the derived structures. It is relevant to recall
>> the footnote to the AoC: "For the purposes of this Affirmation the
>> Internet's domain name and addressing system (DNS) is defined as: domain
>> names; Internet protocol addresses and autonomous system numbers;
>> protocol port and parameter numbers. ICANN coordinates these identifiers
>> at the overall level, consistent with its mission."
> 
> yes at the global level, in other words the IANA is the "root" of IP
> address distribution.

Precisely, this is at global level, just as the Internet.

> 
>>
>> The ARIN response to the NTIA RFC (2011) describes suggestions of NRO
>> members (strangely, not NRO itself - perhaps because it is not
>> incorporated?) becoming official parts in any new official arrangement
>> with NTIA (and even the IETF is bundled in the suggestion), but the fact
>> is that this has not yet happened -- and in my view would amount to an
>> effective decentralization of the role currently played exclusively by
>> ICANN, either as contractor regarding the USG or an international
>> governance structure. But, I repeat, this has not yet happened.
>>
>> So, in summary: ICANN is the body to which direct my question which has
>> motivated this thread. Put in another way: ICANN is the body responsible
>> for responding to the concerns expressed by the community regarding
>> LEAs' intrusion into IPv6 deployment.
> 
> 
> Unless there is a global policy to be considered, I would suggest
> ICANN is out of the picture.

This is a global policy issue -- it might affect deployment of IPv6,
which is not restricted to a country border, particularly if it happens
in the main Internet hub, the USA.

> 
> In practice, the RIR fora are the place where these policies will be
> made (or not made).

But the RIRs are only accountable to their binding contracts with IP
holders, not to global names and numbers policy. The RIRs (I assume this
means NRO) are part of the building of a global addressing policy (just
as GNSO is regarding generic names), but institutional accountability on
a global level remains with Icann.

BTW, I wonder if there is any significant change related to
institutional accountability in the "statement of work" of the neww IANA
contract?

frt rgds

--c.a.

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t