Re: [Ianaplan] What are the RIRs doing?

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 08 September 2014 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977671A0322 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 14:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.345
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FAKE_REPLY_C=1.486, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ki5jLqTNzdw6 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 14:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFDCC1A02A6 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 14:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [50.189.173.0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 524668A031 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 21:15:47 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 17:15:45 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20140908211545.GS74274@mx1.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4eb09168d80b4f58bf7fce5c3990754f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <46cb2aaf81b4437aa3f570c794e603b7@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/XBTx3CJNv_iOnSubW5XS_YjUXj8
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] What are the RIRs doing?
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 21:15:50 -0000

[cc trimmed to the list I'm on]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 07:19:26PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> That seems to be exactly what is happening here. I see no
> preparation for real deliberations, no development of an opportunity
> for people to prepare and discuss alternatives. Instead, I see the
> "leaders" i.e., managers and owners of the existing RIRs, deciding
> in advance that they think is best, and using their control of the
> process to ensure that their preferences will prevail. 

That's not the way I read the situation.  One RIR is with a proposal,
posting it well in advance (given the compressed time scale) of a
meeting, and inviting people to comment on it, discuss it, offer
changes, and so on -- both on the list and in the face to face
meeting.  I think it is way preferable to start with a concrete
proposal, even if it's deeply flawed, than to convene a meeting with a
couple hundred of your closest friends and say, "Start drafting!"

I note that the IETF has also worked this way.  The IAB's IANA
evolution program had two igovupdate sessions in which we both
reported on things we'd been doing and tried to suss out what people
were thinking of that.  We used that to develop principles than then
underpinned our discussion in Toronto in the ianaplan BoF, and now two
members of the IAB program have produced an Internet-Draft that, we
hope, will be the basis of discussion in the (just chartered) ianaplan
WG.  The point is to have a draft that can be discussed, so that
there's some structure to the conversation.  Otherwise, it just
devolves into people standing around saying, "Doom! Doom!"

On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 07:23:50PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> There should and must be a global process, so that all members of
> the addressing community can discuss options directly with each
> other, not filtered or managed by the RIRs in their region.

The addressing community is already organized by RIRs in their region.
Are you suggesting that the addressing community ought to come up with
a completely new, one-off process for undertaking this work instead of
using the mechanisms that it already has in place?

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com