Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] General purpose number registries & policy engagement

[Jefsey <[e-mail]>]

At 16:29 21/10/2014, Leslie Daigle (TCE) wrote:
>I think, for someone who is not as well-versed in the current 
>understandings and expectations between the RIRs and the IETF as you 
>are, the difference in the two statements is who determines the fate 
>of any address space not in identified specialized sub-registries.
>
>The first statement says that all address space that is not listed 
>as an IETF sub-registry is general address space for allocation via 
>the Internet Number Registry System.
>
>The second says that the IETF will identify what space is up for 
>allocation via the Internet Number Registry System.   It leaves open 
>the question of whether (portions of) that space might become 
>special-purpose, handed to the Internet Number Registry System in 
>the future, or what.

The question is to know if IPv6 addresses are common goods (organized 
by the IETF and managed by ICANN), an ITEF Trust or an ICANN 
property. In order to push forn an IPvITU International Number 
Registry Sysem being created in order to adress specific sovereign 
requirements and the fact that the NTIA has only indicated its intent 
to transfer DNS responsibilities to ICANN, the second understanding 
seems advisable since it does not create any de facto monopoly and 
retrains the capacity for the IETF to allocate IPv6 addressing space 
portions along new demands.

jfc