From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Tue Oct 3 07:27:30 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA120272; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:27:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailbag.com (glacier.binc.net [205.173.176.10]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA120263 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:27:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from roadwarrior (arin91.arin.wayport.net [64.134.53.91]) by mailbag.com (8.8.8/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA08796 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:27:20 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Mark McFadden" To: Subject: [aso-policy] Observations on the relationship between RIRs/AC - On openness and transparency Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:26:23 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk All: I certainly salute the efforts of the AC for getting together in Brisbane. What concerns me is my inability to convince the AC members at ARIN (at the ARIN meeting this week) that there should be a broader public process in the development of address policy. As I understand it, the Brisbane meetings are closed to only the AC. RIRs and ICANN staff have been invited as observers. Here at the ARIN meeting an excellent and ambitious agenda has been prepared for Brisbane. What's troubling for me is that, when I suggested at ARIN that the Los Angeles ICANN meeting be used as a natural follow-up, AC members said: . "well, we're already having a meeting in Brisbane" . "people can't make travel plans for Los Angeles" What ever happened to the idea of open and transparent address policy development? What I see happening is a series of teleconferences and meetings that are closed to the usual gang of AC members and RIR representatives. Where's the ability for those who are interested to participate? The idea that ICANN meetings are an "unnatural" place to gather to discuss global addressing policy was raised. I can't understand -- when the ASO is a fundamental part of ICANN -- why addressing shouldn't be discussed at ICANN's annual meeting? If the Address Council simply meets privately with the RIRs -- excluding other interested parties -- what was the point of having an independent AC/ASO in the first place? In fact, this is the very problem that those of us who objected to the current ASO MoU were worried about. A couple of people have suggested that I participate in the open RIR process and have my concerns (excuse the pun) addressed there. The problem is that there is a real tension between global address policy and regionally developed policy -- as an example, see the difficulty that ARIN is having building an HTTP 1.1 policy. The RIRs, naturally, do not want to see any erosion of their ability to respond to regional address policy needs. The RIRs are gradually seeing a real benefit in cooperating on global coordination -- as an example, the excellent cooperation on IPv6 addressing allocation policy (no matter what you may think of the policy). What's missing is . an independent way to participate in global addressing policy development outside the RIRs; . transparency and openness in the cozy relationship between the RIRs and the AC; and, . effective use of the ICANN meetings as a way to discuss addressing policy. I hope that the AC will decide to . make their meetings open to all participants, not just RIRs and ICANN staff; . use the opportunity of the ICANN meetings to open up address policy development; and, . identify those address policies that are truly "regional" and those that are global and would benefit from the cooperation of collaborative policy development. Mark Mark McFadden Chief Technology Officer Commercial Internet eXchange www.cix.org -- mcfadden@cix.org v: (+1) 608-240-1560 f: (+1) 608-240-1562 * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Tue Oct 3 08:56:48 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA65853; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:56:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail45.fg.online.no (mail45-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.45]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA65849 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:56:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from volla (ti08a64-0173.dialup.online.no [130.67.46.173]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA29871; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:56:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003a01c02bfa$f96c3310$0700000a@volla> From: "Hans Petter Holen" To: Cc: Subject: [aso-policy] Input to the AC from the ASO workshop at RIPE 37 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:57:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk Dear Address Council, As chair of the lir-wg, http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/index.html the RIPE open forum where policy is made I am writing you this open letter. The purpose of this note is to update you all on the input gathered from our region. It is an open letter to work as a startingpoint for a broader discussion on the same topics in all of the addressing community. This would provide valuable input to the planned workshop to be held between the AC, the RIRs and ICANN in Brisbane later this year. (This initiative was first suggested in Budapest and later discussed at the AC phone conferences, please refer to the minutes for more information: http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/) At RIPE 37 I called for a special workshop in order to bring those especially interested in ASO matters together with the AC representatives from our region for closer discussion. The announcement of the issues I brought to the meeting can be found at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/20000701-20001001/msg00150.htm l Some 20-30 people showed up including Address Council members - Sabine Jaume, Wilfried Woeber, and myself. The following rather broad topics lies on the Address Councils table, and will be discussed by the AC, ICANN and the RIRs at a physical AC meeting in Brisbane just after the APNIC meeting in October. This effort is thus an attempt to seek advice from the community before these discussions to satisfy the basic requirements for openness and transparency. 1) What is global policy ? There are several dimensions to this discussion: - replace RFC 2050 with a ICANN Address policy document - what is the distinction between regional and global policy - do we understand and appreciate the differences between the regional policies ? - differences between v4 and v6 with respect to the last item - what's the role/work mode of the AC ? to make the definite address policy, or to work on issues as they show up - were is the border between a service level contract and policy issues. - are there other operating guidelines for the ICANN - IANA than the global addressing policy ? 2) Revising the MOU In the widest sense: are there things in the present MOU that needs more work and needs to be changed ? 3) Addressing the essence of the ad Hoc committee, i.e. discussing how to best address new addressing needs emerging for 4) How to promote ipv6 ? 5) Emerging RIRs How to enable and support the emerging RIRs to establish regional policy processes ? The official minutes from this meeting will be posted shortly, but a brief summary is as follows: * The distinction between regional and global address policy needs to be set * The AC needs to understand and appreciate the differences between each of the regional policies * There is interest in harmonizing the core procedures and requirements of the various Regional Registries with regard to LIRs applying for and obtaining IP address space. * The Address Council should proactive set the agenda for global policy development. * IPv4 address exhaustion - the AC should work with the RIRs and the ICANN IANA to produce comparable statistics on address space consumption. Care should be taken to first produce solid data, then diagnose, and finally seek the proper cure. * The AC should not see it as its role to promote IPv4 over IPv6 or vice versa. * The AC should look further into addressing the concerns that initiated the ad Hoc committee * It was also expressed satisfaction with the ASO annual meeting in Budapest and further interest inntrest in more opportunities to meet and discuss global addressing policy with the address council. It was suggested to me publicly and privately that the AC sould seek to hold an open meeting in conjunction with the ICANN annual meeting later this year. The agenda of such a meeting should consist of not only reporting from the work done by the AC and the ASO but also provide open discussions on addressing issues including the ad Hoc group issues, global policy development and several legacy addressing issues. A well prepared meeting with invited speakers as well as a discusion panel is likely to bring more insight into the issues in front of us. Such a meeting would in my opinion serve as an important step in the ongoing process of seeking global consensus. We have started the discussion regionally at RIPE 37, the ARIN policy meeting and the upcoming APNIC policy meeting. Thereafter the AC, RIRs and ICANN will work further on some issues, present and discuss them at the ICANN annual meeting before seeking final consensus at all the regions mailinglists and upcoming policy meetings. I would by this ask the chair of the address council to bring these suggestions to the address councils next phone conference. Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen RIPE lir-wg Chair, the open forum where policy is made. * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Wed Oct 4 13:39:17 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA82210; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:39:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA82206 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:39:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA20647 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:39:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma020645; Wed, 4 Oct 00 13:38:54 +1000 Received: from wilson (wilson.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.36]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA18523 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:38:51 +1000 (EST) From: "Paul Wilson" To: Subject: [aso-policy] RFC2928: Initial IPv6 Sub-TLA ID Assignments Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:38:52 +1000 Message-ID: <00ad01c02db4$9d2f4d60$2401a8c0@staff.apnic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk Address Council members and others may be interested to know that this document, first published in 1998 as an internet-draft (draft-ietf-ipngwg-iana-tla-01.txt), has now been published as an informational RFC... ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2928.txt ______________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3367 0490/82 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- See you at the APNIC Open Policy meeting! Brisbane, 25-27 Oct 2000 http://www.apnic.net/meetings * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Wed Oct 4 22:45:21 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA86069; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 22:45:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail-1.catskill.net (ns.catskill.net [205.232.250.2]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA86064 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 22:45:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from iciiu.org (204.m62.mon.catskill.net [12.33.158.204]) by mail-1.catskill.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e94Cj5I19790 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:45:05 -0400 Message-ID: <39DB2435.DE273CBA@iciiu.org> Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 08:36:05 -0400 From: Michael Sondow X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [fr] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aso-policy@lists.aso.icann.org Subject: [aso-policy] [Fwd: RIPE's Copyright vs. ICANN???] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------BA5381611C0FE565D2F3BC92" Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk Il s'agit d'un message multivolet au format MIME. --------------BA5381611C0FE565D2F3BC92 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------BA5381611C0FE565D2F3BC92 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from lists.netsol.com (lists.netsol.com [216.168.224.214]) by perfekt.perfekt.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA19749 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 00:16:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists.netsol.com (lists.netsol.com [216.168.224.214]) by lists.netsol.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA15287; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 00:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from LISTS.NETSOL.COM by LISTS.NETSOL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 8618125 for DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 00:14:27 -0400 Received: from unagi.cybernothing.org (root@unagi.cybernothing.org [209.133.38.7]) by lists.netsol.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA15278 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 00:14:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (patrick@localhost) by unagi.cybernothing.org (8.10.1/8.10.1/JDF) with ESMTP id e9448BU64600 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 21:08:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: patrick@localhost MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 21:08:11 -0700 Reply-To: Patrick Greenwell Sender: Owner-Domain-Policy From: Patrick Greenwell Subject: RIPE's Copyright vs. ICANN??? To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Here's an interesting question: RIPE has a copyright on the information in their database. " Except for agreed Internet operational purposes, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of the RIPE NCC on behalf of the copyright holders. Any use of this material to target advertising or similar activities is explicitly forbidden and will be prosecuted. The RIPE NCC requests to be notified of any such activities or suspicions thereof. " Does this copyright hold up in the face of ICANN requirements regarding access to registrar databases? --------------BA5381611C0FE565D2F3BC92-- * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Wed Oct 4 23:21:40 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA90732; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 23:21:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailbag.com (glacier.binc.net [205.173.176.10]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA90709 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 23:21:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from roadwarrior (arin91.arin.wayport.net [64.134.53.91]) by mailbag.com (8.8.8/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA30617; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:21:36 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Mark McFadden" To: Cc: Subject: RE: [aso-policy] Input to the AC from the ASO workshop at RIPE 37 Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:20:51 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk Hans Petter wrote (seeking input): >>1) What is global policy ? >> >>There are several dimensions to this discussion: >>- replace RFC 2050 with a ICANN Address policy document >>- what is the distinction between regional and global policy >>- do we understand and appreciate the differences between the regional >>policies ? >>- differences between v4 and v6 with respect to the last item >>- what's the role/work mode of the AC ? to make the definite address policy, >>or to work on issues as they show up >>- were is the border between a service level contract and policy issues. >>- are there other operating guidelines for the ICANN - IANA than the global >>addressing policy ? Here are some observations: - a growing number of issues in addressing policy are global in scope, not regional. The RIRs recognize this and have met and coordinated policy in a variety areas. I think the number of issues that are global in scope are growing and -- after seeing the debates over IPv6 and HTTP 1.1 name based hosting at a couple of RIR meetings -- I think global consistency is going to become crucial. The RIRs can be one place for people to have input on global addressing issues, but it shouldn't be the only one. - I think that RFC 2050 should be updated or replaced with a document that clearly identifies allocation policies and the exceptional cases (net-24 and the like) that face both established and emerging registries. That ought to be a work item for a "working group" in the ASO. I'd be willing to be a contributor to that effort. - I like to see someone propose a definition of what issues are really regional issues. After all the pool of IPv4/IPv6 addresses is truly a global set of addresses. It seems to me that they should be managed with a consistent set of rules regardless of whether your are in Aruba or Zambia. So, what are the regional issues? I understand that there are administrative issues that distinguish each of the registries -- that makes sense. But why would there be differences in IP address policy? - On global policy, I'd like to see the AC's workflow diagram published as a draft document on http://www.aso.icann.org with an opportunity to comment. Specifically, I'd like to see the mechanisms that are there that support meaningful public and industry participation in addressing policy development. Where in the workflow diagram is the opportunity for interested companies and engineers to raise addressing issues outside the context of the RIRs? It's just my opinion, but that's what you asked for.... mark Mark McFadden Chief Technology Officer Commercial Internet eXchange www.cix.org -- mcfadden@cix.org v: (+1) 608-240-1560 f: (+1) 608-240-1562 * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Wed Oct 4 23:21:42 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA90748; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 23:21:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailbag.com (glacier.binc.net [205.173.176.10]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA90713 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 23:21:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from roadwarrior (arin91.arin.wayport.net [64.134.53.91]) by mailbag.com (8.8.8/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA30626; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:21:37 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Mark McFadden" To: Cc: Subject: RE: [aso-policy] Input to the AC from the ASO workshop at RIPE 37 Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:20:53 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk Hans Petter said: >> 3) Addressing the essence of the ad Hoc committee, i.e. discussing how to >> best address new addressing needs emerging for I'll respond on the Ad Hoc Committee in a moment. At the ARIN meeting this week Brian Carpenter presented a slightly revised version of the presentation that Bob Hinden made at RIPE in September. The discussion afterward was lively but what was clear was that the IAB/IESG was doing a good job of education during their road shows, but they weren't completely convincing their audience. I'd observe that: - many people have done some estimates of when IPv4 exhaustion takes place, with many different results (depending on the algorithm used); nobody seems to agree and it seems to affect the debate on IPv6 - many people have ideas about what pressures are emerging on addressing -- with people already asking for conservation of IPv6 space because of fears about what might happen in the future; - not everyone agrees that you can successfully predict the future -- and especially the future impact of technologies that are yet to be deployed or even imagined; and, - some believe that IPv6 allocation should reflect a "worst case" analysis of possible futures. Whether the Ad Hoc committee continues past Los Angeles or not, I think the AC should be prepared to deal with these issues. The IESG/IAB road show has been helpful in bringing part of the discussion to some constituencies, but the discussion should be larger than simply the size of allocations in IPv6 to a specific class of users. The AC should take this effort on - a "working group" if you will - that meaningfully involved the IETF, the RIRs, traditional telephone companies, mobile operators, ISPs and anyone else in the industry that has a stake in the pressures that are coming on addressing. This is a natural group to sort through the various estimates on IPv4 exhaustion (I sat at dinner and heard three different representatives of three different companies give three different estimates -- and swear that they were correct) and then act on the Ad Hoc Committee's report of "drivers" of pressure on address policy. That should be the group that takes the lead on the IPv6 discussion -- gathering input and making a recommendation to the AC/ASO and RIRs. At its Brisbane meeting I'd like to see the Address Council charter such a working group and have it work in coordination with the IETF, the RIRs, traditional telephone companies, mobile operators, and ISPs. mark Mark McFadden Chief Technology Officer Commercial Internet eXchange www.cix.org -- mcfadden@cix.org v: (+1) 608-240-1560 f: (+1) 608-240-1562 * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Thu Oct 5 19:58:50 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA125880; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 19:58:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail49.fg.online.no (mail49-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.49]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA125876 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 19:58:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from wm-java3.fg.online.no (wm-java3-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.100]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA29462 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:58:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <18231135.970739920572.JavaMail.webmail1@wm-java3.fg.online.no> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:58:40 +0200 (CEST) From: Hans Petter Holen To: aso-policy@aso.icann.org Subject: [aso-policy] Public call for for comments on Address Council flowchart Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="30375891.970739920561.JavaMail.webmail1@wm-java3.fg.online.no" X-Mailer: Nextel Kontor X-Real-User: hph X-Client-Addr: 195.225.5.133 Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk --30375891.970739920561.JavaMail.webmail1@wm-java3.fg.online.no Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear addressing community, The address council has recently published a graphical view of the procedures of the Address Council at our web site: http://www.aso.icann.org/ac/ http://www.aso.icann.org/ac/procedures.pdf This document is an attempt to describe our best understanding of the framework set by the ICANN bylaws and the ASO MoU and is specifically NOT an attempt to set new policy. I do however find it appropriate to apply the procedure on itself. We have started that process by presenting it to the RIPE plenary at RIPE 37, and to the ARIN open policy meeting, and plan to do likewise at the upcoming ARIN meeting. Please submit your comments and questions to our public policy mailing list aso-policy@aso.icann.org. Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen, Chair, ICANN Address Supporting Organization Address Council ------------ The internal development process of this document can be found in the minutes of our meetings at our web-site: 27 January 2000, Teleconference 2)Procedures for the AC http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/meetings/ac-20000127.html 18 May 2000, Budapest, Hungary http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/meetings/ac-20000518.html 13. Draft procedural document 7 June 2000, Teleconference 4. AC procedures flowchart http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/meetings/ac-20000607.html 5 July 2000, Teleconference http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/meetings/ac-20000705.html - Sabine to resubmit AC procedures graph (Done) --30375891.970739920561.JavaMail.webmail1@wm-java3.fg.online.no-- * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Sat Oct 21 03:28:52 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA113775; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:28:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from ctc.cl (moises.ctc.cl [200.29.39.98]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA113753 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:28:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from i442599 by ctc.cl (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA00036; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:28:16 -0300 Message-ID: <000f01c03abb$98d6e750$39c54ba6@i442599.ctc.cl> From: "Raimundo Beca" To: Subject: [aso-policy] Public call for for comments on Address Council flowchart Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:31:35 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01C03AA2.73003400" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C03AA2.73003400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Adressing Comunity: =20 In addition to the complete references given by Hans Peter about the = Address Council flowchart and the process through which it was adopted, = I would like to mention that this chart was also presented publically at = the two following occasions: 1) Takashi Arano presented a draft of the flowchart at Yokohama, last = July (see: = http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/presentations/ASOUpda= te0700/index_files/frame.htm slide 13);=20 2) I presented the adopted flowchart at the VI ARIN Public Meeting, = early this month (the presentation will be soon posted with the minutes = of the meeting in ARIN's web site. Regards. Raimundo Beca=20 ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C03AA2.73003400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Adressing = Comunity:
 
In addition to the complete = references given by=20 Hans Peter about the Address Council flowchart and the process through = which it=20 was adopted, I would like to mention that this chart was also presented=20 publically at the two following occasions:
 
1) Takashi Arano presented a draft = of the=20 flowchart at Yokohama, last July (see: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/= yokohama/archive/presentations/ASOUpdate0700/index_files/frame.htm=20 slide 13); 
 
2) I presented the adopted flowchart = at the VI=20 ARIN Public Meeting, early this month (the presentation will be soon = posted with=20 the minutes of the meeting in ARIN's web site.
 
Regards.
 
Raimundo = Beca 
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C03AA2.73003400-- * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Sat Oct 21 20:38:57 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA117397; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:38:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mako1.telstra.net (mako1.telstra.net [203.50.0.28]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA117393 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:38:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from tecra.telstra.net ([203.10.60.9]) by mako1.telstra.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id UAA43494; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:38:43 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from gih@telstra.net) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021213516.00b82cf0@jumble.telstra.net> X-Sender: gih@jumble.telstra.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:38:38 +1000 To: "Raimundo Beca" From: Geoff Huston Subject: Re: [aso-policy] Public call for for comments on Address Council flowchart Cc: In-Reply-To: <000f01c03abb$98d6e750$39c54ba6@i442599.ctc.cl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk >In addition to the complete references given by Hans Peter about the >Address Council flowchart and the process through which it was adopted, I >would like to mention that this chart was also presented publically at the >two following occasions: > >1) Takashi Arano presented a draft of the flowchart at Yokohama, last July >(see: >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/presentations/ASOUpdate0700/index_files/frame.htm >slide 13); > >2) I presented the adopted flowchart at the VI ARIN Public Meeting, early >this month (the presentation will be soon posted with the minutes of the >meeting in ARIN's web site. That's some procedure flowchart! I'm curious... has it ever been exercised? regards, Geoff >Regards. > >Raimundo Beca * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Fri Oct 27 10:27:58 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA80570; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:27:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail49.fg.online.no (mail49-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.49]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA80565 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:27:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from hph (gaustad.sys.sol.no [195.225.4.13]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA20352; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 02:27:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00b201c03fac$af356210$d7fbb3ca@hph> From: "Hans Petter Holen" To: Cc: Subject: [aso-policy] Re: Note to ASO Council Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 02:27:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk Dear Mike Roberts, Thank you very much for your contribution, and my sincere apologies for the long time it has taken to produce a proper answer to your letter dated 17 Nov 1999 http://aso.icann.org/mailing-lists/aso-policy/9911/msg00001.html ! The Address Council has discussed your request and, after consultation with the 3 Regional Internet Registries, has come up with the following position. We understand that you have brought two important issues to the ASO's attention: - To build an agenda for policy review and recommendations in the IP address area. - To further define details of, and clarify the relationship between, ICANN plus IANA and the already established RIRs, both from a formal as well as from an operational point of view. To move forward on these issues, the ASO is pursuing the following paths: 1) To build an agenda for policy review and recommendation in the IP address area we have started holding regular phone meetings and have invited your staff to join in so that we jointly set the agenda and work together. 2) The ASO Council will include on it's agenda the development and recommendation of an address policy for the reserved infrastructure space. We hope to address this issue in more detail especially by holding a joint workshop at the upcoming regional policy meeting in Brisbane, Australia. 3) To further define and specify the relationship between IANA and the RIRs. This task is twofold, both identifying and setting the truly global policy issues, but also be of assistance to the RIRs and IANA to develop the appropriate framework for a sound service level agreement between IANA/ICANN and the RIRs. The AC is confident that our joint efforts in these areas will strengthen the collaboration between IANA and the RIRs and further help to clarify the issues you have brought to the AC's attention. On behalf of the ASO Address Council, Hans Petter Holen Chair * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Fri Oct 27 11:22:29 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA88788; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:22:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail47.fg.online.no (mail47-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.47]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA88784 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:22:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from hph (gaustad.sys.sol.no [195.225.4.13]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA23781 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:22:19 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00d801c03fb4$5013ec40$d7fbb3ca@hph> From: "Hans Petter Holen" To: Subject: [aso-policy] Announcement & Call for presentations of informal ASO meeting in Los Angeles 2000-11-14 09:00-12:00 Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:21:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk The Address Council has asked for facilities to be in place at the upcoming ICANN meeting http://www.icann.org/mdr2000/ in Marina del Ray, for an informal meeting at Tuesday November 14th from 0900 until 1200. Draft agenda: * Address Council status report I would also like to call for other presentation to be given at this meeting. Please send your contributions to the AC chair at hph@online.no by November 6th. Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen ICANN Address Council chair. * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Fri Oct 27 12:15:47 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA96417; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:15:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail47.fg.online.no (mail47-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.47]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA96412 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:15:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from hph (gaustad.sys.sol.no [195.225.4.13]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA09186 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:15:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <019001c03fbb$c29da740$d7fbb3ca@hph> From: "Hans Petter Holen" To: Subject: [aso-policy] Final Call: Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:15:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk Dear Addressing Community, The Address Council has now received the final version of the "Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries" http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/other/emerging-rir-v1.html from the RIRs: APNIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC. The address council is planning to make its final recommendation at our December phone conference on this document and pass it on to ICANN. The document has been posted to aso-policy in two earlier versions, and circulated to the communities of the emerging registries and to my knowledge all comments have been discussed and incorporated as seen appropriate. To follow up on our decision from the AC meeting on Thursday 18 May 2000, http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/meetings/ac-20000518.html I am hereby calling for final comments from the community before the AC makes its recommendation to ICANN on this document. All comments to be taken into concideration before the AC makes its recomendation on wether or not to recomend ICANN to adapt this Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries may be posted to aso-policy@aso.icann.org by December 1st Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen ICANN Address Council chair * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Sat Oct 28 14:26:49 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA107504; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 14:26:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail-1.catskill.net (ns.catskill.net [205.232.250.2]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA107500 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 14:26:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from iciiu.org (224.m62.mon.catskill.net [12.33.158.224]) by mail-1.catskill.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e9S4QT900684; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 00:26:30 -0400 Message-ID: <39FA531C.9E4AD7E3@iciiu.org> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 00:16:28 -0400 From: Michael Sondow X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [fr] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aso-policy@aso.icann.org CC: IFWP , Domain Policy , Caitlin Halligan , Eric Wenger , Fraud Net , "Gary.Weinstein" , Herschel Gelman , Jeri Clausing , "Joel I. Klein" , Kenneth Jost , "U.S. Ho. of Reps. Commerce Committee" Subject: [aso-policy] Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk To the ASO, ICANN, and Whomever Else It May Concern: This is a formal protest against the adoption of any criteria whatsoever for the establishment of new regional Internet registries by ICANN, and the proposal of such criteria by the Address Supporting Organization (ASO), as there has been no bottom-up discussion of such criteria by the Internet stakeholders and the Internet community at large, who will be affected by them. Michael Sondow ============================================================ International Congress of Independent Internet Users (ICIIU) http://www.iciiu.org iciiu@iciiu.org ============================================================ Hans Petter Holen ICANN Address Council chair wrote on 27 Oct 2000: > The Address Council has now received the final version of the > "Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries" > http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/other/emerging-rir-v1.html > > from the RIRs: APNIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC. > > The address council is planning to make its final recommendation at > our December phone conference on this document and pass it on to ICANN. * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Sat Oct 28 20:51:02 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA90256; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:51:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mahonia.wanadoo.fr (smtp-abo-5.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.58] (may be forged)) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA90237 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:50:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from jefsey.wanadoo.fr (193.253.200.208) by mahonia.wanadoo.fr; 28 Oct 2000 12:50:56 +0200 Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001028123454.00ac1690@pop.wanadoo.fr> X-Sender: jefsey@pop.wanadoo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 12:40:33 +0200 To: aso-policy@aso.icann.org From: Jefsey Morfin Subject: Re: [aso-policy] Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries In-Reply-To: <39FA531C.9E4AD7E3@iciiu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk Michael, I am surprised to receive this mail while I am registered on this list for some time. I though I missregistered. From your experience, is there some discussion going on (I do not even talk about a bottom up process)? I suppose they had some election process to the BoD? I thank you for your response: I just want first to check if my mail system works correctly, or if I registered on the proper ASO list. Jefsey Morfin At 06:16 28/10/00, you wrote: >To the ASO, ICANN, and Whomever Else It May Concern: > >This is a formal protest against the adoption of any criteria >whatsoever for the establishment of new regional Internet registries >by ICANN, and the proposal of such criteria by the Address >Supporting Organization (ASO), as there has been no bottom-up >discussion of such criteria by the Internet stakeholders and the >Internet community at large, who will be affected by them. > >Michael Sondow >============================================================ >International Congress of Independent Internet Users (ICIIU) > http://www.iciiu.org iciiu@iciiu.org >============================================================ > > >Hans Petter Holen ICANN Address Council chair wrote on 27 Oct 2000: > > > The Address Council has now received the final version of the > > "Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries" > > http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/other/emerging-rir-v1.html > > > > from the RIRs: APNIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC. > > > > The address council is planning to make its final recommendation at > > our December phone conference on this document and pass it on to ICANN. >* on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * >* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to >aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Sun Oct 29 10:17:59 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA123015; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 10:17:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from hawk.LVRMR.MHSC.COM (hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com [199.108.175.236]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA122996 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 10:17:56 +1000 (EST) Received: by hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 17:19:07 -0700 Message-ID: <1148622BC878D411971F0060082B042C058E65@hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com> From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" To: Jefsey Morfin , aso-policy@aso.icann.org Subject: RE: [aso-policy] Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional I nternet Registries Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 17:19:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk Jefsey, I too have been on this list for a while. Nothing has been hapening that I can see. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:jefsey@wanadoo.fr] > Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 3:41 AM > To: aso-policy@aso.icann.org > Subject: Re: [aso-policy] Criteria for the Establishment of > New Regional > Internet Registries > > > Michael, > I am surprised to receive this mail while I am registered on this list > for some time. I though I missregistered. > From your experience, is there some discussion going on (I do not > even talk about a bottom up process)? I suppose they had some > election process to the BoD? I thank you for your response: I just > want first to check if my mail system works correctly, or if > I registered > on the proper ASO list. > Jefsey Morfin > > > At 06:16 28/10/00, you wrote: > >To the ASO, ICANN, and Whomever Else It May Concern: > > > >This is a formal protest against the adoption of any criteria > >whatsoever for the establishment of new regional Internet registries > >by ICANN, and the proposal of such criteria by the Address > >Supporting Organization (ASO), as there has been no bottom-up > >discussion of such criteria by the Internet stakeholders and the > >Internet community at large, who will be affected by them. > > > >Michael Sondow > >============================================================ > >International Congress of Independent Internet Users (ICIIU) > > http://www.iciiu.org iciiu@iciiu.org > >============================================================ > > > > > >Hans Petter Holen ICANN Address Council chair wrote on 27 Oct 2000: > > > > > The Address Council has now received the final version of the > > > "Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional > Internet Registries" > > > http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/other/emerging-rir-v1.html > > > > > > from the RIRs: APNIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC. > > > > > > The address council is planning to make its final > recommendation at > > > our December phone conference on this document and pass > it on to ICANN. > >* on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * >* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to >aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Sun Oct 29 16:23:26 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA103084; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:23:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from hawk.LVRMR.MHSC.COM (hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com [199.108.175.236]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA103080 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:23:23 +1000 (EST) Received: by hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:24:47 -0700 Message-ID: <1148622BC878D411971F0060082B042C058E68@hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com> From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" To: aso-policy@aso.icann.org Subject: RE: [aso-policy] Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional I nternet Registries Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:24:46 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk test > -----Original Message----- > From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@MHSC.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 5:19 PM > To: Jefsey Morfin; aso-policy@aso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [aso-policy] Criteria for the Establishment of > New Regional > I nternet Registries > > > Jefsey, > > I too have been on this list for a while. Nothing has been > hapening that I > can see. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:jefsey@wanadoo.fr] > > Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 3:41 AM > > To: aso-policy@aso.icann.org > > Subject: Re: [aso-policy] Criteria for the Establishment of > > New Regional > > Internet Registries > > > > > > Michael, > > I am surprised to receive this mail while I am registered > on this list > > for some time. I though I missregistered. > > From your experience, is there some discussion going on (I do not > > even talk about a bottom up process)? I suppose they had some > > election process to the BoD? I thank you for your response: I just > > want first to check if my mail system works correctly, or if > > I registered > > on the proper ASO list. > > Jefsey Morfin > > > > > > At 06:16 28/10/00, you wrote: > > >To the ASO, ICANN, and Whomever Else It May Concern: > > > > > >This is a formal protest against the adoption of any criteria > > >whatsoever for the establishment of new regional Internet > registries > > >by ICANN, and the proposal of such criteria by the Address > > >Supporting Organization (ASO), as there has been no bottom-up > > >discussion of such criteria by the Internet stakeholders and the > > >Internet community at large, who will be affected by them. > > > > > >Michael Sondow > > >============================================================ > > >International Congress of Independent Internet Users (ICIIU) > > > http://www.iciiu.org iciiu@iciiu.org > > >============================================================ > > > > > > > > >Hans Petter Holen ICANN Address Council chair wrote on 27 Oct 2000: > > > > > > > The Address Council has now received the final version of the > > > > "Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional > > Internet Registries" > > > > http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/other/emerging-rir-v1.html > > > > > > > > from the RIRs: APNIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC. > > > > > > > > The address council is planning to make its final > > recommendation at > > > > our December phone conference on this document and pass > > it on to ICANN. > > >* on-line archive: > http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * > >* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to > >aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * > > * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Mon Oct 30 01:00:45 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA104863; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:00:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail-1.catskill.net (ns.catskill.net [205.232.250.2]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA104857 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:00:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from iciiu.org (134.m62.mon.catskill.net [12.33.158.134]) by mail-1.catskill.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e9TF0Q909435; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 10:00:34 -0500 Message-ID: <39FC2EAB.431223FF@iciiu.org> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 09:05:31 -0500 From: Michael Sondow X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [fr] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jefsey Morfin CC: ASO Subject: Re: [aso-policy] Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001028123454.00ac1690@pop.wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk Mr. Morfin- You wrote: > I am surprised to receive this mail while I am registered on this list > for some time. I though I missregistered. There have been other postings, although not many. > From your experience, is there some discussion going on (I do not > even talk about a bottom up process)? Very little. Mostly announcements, of the sort that my recent post was a response to. I believe that all the real discussion has taken place within the hierarchies of the already-established RIRs. There was a posting by Mark McFadden, on October 2, relating to the lack of open process. Here is part of what Mr. McFadden wrote: "I certainly salute the efforts of the AC for getting together in Brisbane. What concerns me is my inability to convince the AC members at ARIN (at the ARIN meeting this week) that there should be a broader public process in the development of address policy." So far as I am concerned, there has been no open process at all. Naturally, the people who control the allocation of IP addresses have no interest in allowing the public to become aware of addressing policy, as they would then have to reveal their criteria (or lack of criteria) for doing it, and could be called to account for the partiality undoubtedly employed by them. And of course these are the same people who dominate the IETF, the root servers, ISOC, IPV6 implementation, and all the rest. > I suppose they had some > election process to the BoD? I'm not sure what you mean here. What BoD? > I thank you for your response: I just > want first to check if my mail system works correctly, or if I registered > on the proper ASO list. This is supposed to be the official discussion list for the ASO of ICANN. I guess the RIR in-group had to have a list so as to appear open and above-board, even if all policy decisions are being made in camera. Michael Sondow ============================================================ International Congress of Independent Internet Users (ICIIU) http://www.iciiu.org iciiu@iciiu.org ============================================================ * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Mon Oct 30 01:57:36 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA113023; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:57:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA113019 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:57:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (from sob@localhost) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27557 for aso-policy@aso.icann.org; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 10:57:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 10:57:16 -0500 (EST) From: Scott Bradner Message-Id: <200010291557.KAA27557@newdev.harvard.edu> To: aso-policy@aso.icann.org Subject: re: [aso-policy] Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk humm - people seem to be taking time to bash the process than evaluate the proposal - that does not seem to be all that useful how about looking at the proposal and commenting on it if you have comments? note that review on this list is part of process as will a ICANN-level public review (I assume) - now is the time to suggest changes Scott * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Mon Oct 30 03:02:22 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA122013; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 03:02:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from antholoma.wanadoo.fr (smtp-abo-4.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.153]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA122008 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 03:02:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from jefsey.wanadoo.fr (193.251.75.223) by antholoma.wanadoo.fr; 29 Oct 2000 18:02:16 +0100 Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001029180122.0363bb10@pop.wanadoo.fr> X-Sender: jefsey@pop.wanadoo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:01:31 +0100 To: aso-policy@aso.icann.org From: Jefsey Morfin Subject: Re: [aso-policy] Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk Dear Michael, I suppose this situation you describe both results from the lack of understanding of the importance of the involved issues by the @large members and the perfect understanding by some of those thinking having an industrial interest in managing them to their own benefit. I believe that to the contrary, the important of the IP addressing plan makes of the best interest of every concerned parties that the largest number of stakeholders may contribute. As an active @large member from France, I certainly desire to see @large people to become more involved in these matters. I am interested to know if you are an experience person in this and if you have an establish doctrine we might support. My own opinion is that the priority is for common people to clearly understand what is at stake, to study the impact in their own field and to jointly develop a working protocol to make an inventory of their requests so operations, technology, every industry, privacy, media convergences, administrative, political and legal, etc.. points of views may be considered otherwise the impacts and the costs of the patches in the coming decades and centuries will be dramatic. This call for comments is obviously sent to all the @large Members of this list. I will take an example: I would be interested in comments about the impact and the cost of the recent ARIN suggestion about CNAMES. Some paragraphs in the proposed document for new RIRs seem to lead to very important changes in the Internet management which IMHO should be publicly debated in the press? Please correct me if I am wrong. Jefsey Morfin France@large At 15:05 29/10/00, you wrote: >Mr. Morfin- >You wrote: > > I am surprised to receive this mail while I am registered on this list > > for some time. I though I missregistered. >There have been other postings, although not many. > > > From your experience, is there some discussion going on (I do not > > even talk about a bottom up process)? >Very little. Mostly announcements, of the sort that my recent post >was a response to. I believe that all the real discussion has taken >place within the hierarchies of the already-established RIRs. > >There was a posting by Mark McFadden, on October 2, relating to the >lack of open process. Here is part of what Mr. McFadden wrote: > >"I certainly salute the efforts of the AC for getting together in >Brisbane. What concerns me is my inability to convince the AC >members >at ARIN (at the ARIN meeting this week) that there should be a >broader public process in the development of address policy." > >So far as I am concerned, there has been no open process at all. >Naturally, the people who control the allocation of IP addresses >have no interest in allowing the public to become aware of >addressing policy, as they would then have to reveal their criteria >(or lack of criteria) for doing it, and could be called to account >for the partiality undoubtedly employed by them. And of course these >are the same people who dominate the IETF, the root servers, ISOC, >IPV6 implementation, and all the rest. > > > I suppose they had some > > election process to the BoD? >I'm not sure what you mean here. What BoD? > > > I thank you for your response: I just > > want first to check if my mail system works correctly, or if I registered > > on the proper ASO list. >This is supposed to be the official discussion list for the ASO of >ICANN. I guess the RIR in-group had to have a list so as to appear >open and above-board, even if all policy decisions are being made in >camera. > >Michael Sondow >============================================================ >International Congress of Independent Internet Users (ICIIU) > http://www.iciiu.org iciiu@iciiu.org >============================================================ * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Mon Oct 30 11:47:05 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA123391; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:47:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail-1.catskill.net (ns.catskill.net [205.232.250.2]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA123381 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:47:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from iciiu.org (187.m62.mon.catskill.net [12.33.158.187]) by mail-1.catskill.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e9U1ks914575; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:46:54 -0500 Message-ID: <39FCD303.92F0A077@iciiu.org> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:46:43 -0500 From: Michael Sondow X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [fr] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aso-policy@aso.icann.org CC: Scott Bradner , Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [aso-policy] Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries References: <200010291557.KAA27557@newdev.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk Hello, Mr. Bradner. You wrote: > people seem to be taking time to bash the process than evaluate > the proposal - that does not seem to be all that useful No one, to my knowledge, is bashing a process, for the simple reason that there has been no process, or none that is transparent enough to be bashed. > how about looking at the proposal and commenting on it if you have > comments? I, personally, am not knowledgeable about address allocation and may not be able to make useful comments yet, except perhaps in a very general way. Part of the problem is that there is nowhere to go (certainly not this list) where the issues involved in changes and additions to the existing situation can be read and evaluated. Discussion needs to be brought from those who have made policy until now to the community. > note that review on this list is part of process as > will a ICANN-level public review (I assume) I have not seen any review on this list, which makes it next to impossible for me or anyone else on it to comment. As to an ICANN-level review, that can only serve a useful purpose if it is conducted openly, which means, once again, bringing the issues to the public, which I suppose here means the @large membership, as well as the relative DNSO constituencies like ISPs, since the ASO does not have comparable bodies. Will the ASO proposals be discussed openly at the ICANN meeting? If so, I would rely first of all on the opinions of knowledgeable persons like Karl Auerbach to explain the issues for the rest of us, so that we can give our opinion on them. > now is the time > to suggest changes I think that pressuring people to opine on matters they are not very familiar with, by telling them that decisions are about to be made by others, is not a useful way to proceed. If the establishment of new registries is an important matter, and I believe it is, then the issues involved should be brought, in a clear and concise non-technical way, to the many stakeholders who will eventually be affected by them. Don't you agree? M. Sondow * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Mon Oct 30 12:07:48 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA125823; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:07:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail-1.catskill.net (ns.catskill.net [205.232.250.2]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA125798 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:07:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from iciiu.org (187.m62.mon.catskill.net [12.33.158.187]) by mail-1.catskill.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e9U27A918429; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 21:07:10 -0500 Message-ID: <39FCD7C3.69BAC991@iciiu.org> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 21:06:59 -0500 From: Michael Sondow X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [fr] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASO CC: Jefsey Morfin , Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [aso-policy] Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001029180122.0363bb10@pop.wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk Mr. Morfin- You wrote: > I suppose this situation you describe both results from the lack of > understanding of the importance of the involved issues by the @large > members and the perfect understanding by some of those thinking > having an industrial interest in managing them to their own benefit. There is a knowledge gap. And it is not easy for those who have been the purveyors of the knowledge to share it with others. > I believe that to the contrary, the important of the IP addressing > plan makes of the best interest of every concerned parties that the > largest number of stakeholders may contribute. As an active @large > member from France, I certainly desire to see @large people to > become more involved in these matters. It is important for that to happen. I think that the new @large directors, if they are made aware of the ASO proposals and discussion, will help to bring @large members into it. But they must first be made aware of the need for their intervention and for the broadening of this process. > I am interested to know if you are an experience person in this and > if you have an establish doctrine we might support. I am not an experienced person in the realm of IP address allocation. I do know that the present system, if it can be called that, is the historical outgrowth of allocation by fiat, and that the present registries were created by a small core of those people who created the Internet. I also know, from ISPs I have dealt with, that the criteria and economics of address allocation have not been decided through a representative process of those who use the addresses, but by those with a seniority claim to that authority. It seems clear, then, that the creation of new registries, at a time when the Internet is growing up to its future role in the world, needs to be done in a new and more inclusive fashion. > My own opinion > is that the priority is for common people to clearly understand what > is at stake, to study the impact in their own field and to jointly > develop a working protocol to make an inventory of their requests so > operations, technology, every industry, privacy, media convergences, > administrative, political and legal, etc.. points of views may be considered > otherwise the impacts and the costs of the patches in the coming > decades and centuries will be dramatic. Planning ahead, opening up to the feedback and influence of users, and entering into a decision-making process based on multilateral dialogue certainly do seem to make good sense. > This call for comments is obviously sent to all the @large Members > of this list. I will take an example: I would be interested in comments > about the impact and the cost of the recent ARIN suggestion about > CNAMES. I'm sure that this and other issues would benefit immensely from a broad dialogue. > Some paragraphs in the proposed document for new RIRs seem > to lead to very important changes in the Internet management > which IMHO should be publicly debated in the press? Please > correct me if I am wrong. It may not be possible yet for the broader public that reads the non-specialist press to appreciate the issues, but perhaps the specialist Internet press could be usefully involved. At any rate, there is now a broader-based community involved in the Internet governance process, through the @large membership, and they certainly should be given the opportunity to discuss the issues. M. Sondow * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org * From owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Mon Oct 30 12:54:35 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA66887; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:54:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (smtp-abo-2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.150]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA66881 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:54:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from jefsey.wanadoo.fr (193.251.75.77) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 30 Oct 2000 03:54:30 +0100 Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001030033038.00a7f4c0@pop.wanadoo.fr> X-Sender: jefsey@pop.wanadoo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 03:45:13 +0100 To: icann-europe@fitug.de, aso-policy@aso.icann.org, icann-candidates@egroups.com From: Jefsey Morfin Subject: Re: [aso-policy] Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries In-Reply-To: <39FCD7C3.69BAC991@iciiu.org> References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001029180122.0363bb10@pop.wanadoo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-aso-policy@aso.icann.org Precedence: bulk TO Mr. Snodon Mr. Karl Auerbach and Mr. Andy Muller Maguhn, and all icann-europe, icann-candidate, I whish to alert all of you on the ASO situation. This is a typical case where @large involvement is of the utmost importance. Without any discussion, ASO has published a recommendation to the ICANN about the introduction of new RIRs (regional authorities to allocate IP addresses). This document: - does not take into account out of seemingly real ignorance of about business, social, technical etc... reality the importance of the IP addressing scheme and it impact upon privacy, social organization, day to day life through the Internet convergence with telephone, media etc... - introduces several points which conflicts with other visions of the Internet. You will find here a very interesting response from M. Sondon (from International Congress of Independent Internet Users (ICIIU) to a message I sent to him while dialoguing on that issue. I would recommend @large users to join the ASO ML in sending a mail to containing "subscribe aso-policy" to majordomo@aso.icann.org. This issues are complex (protocol) but it simple to understand the impact when you recall that your portable IP address will be used to replace your credit card number, be used to crypt your mails, tell everyone where your portable or your car is, identify your appliances for automatic services, be used for page censorship, serve as your identification on Echelon like services and be an invisible replacement for many cookies, etc,, etc... as well as to route calls on the Internet, and this most probably for centuries... Jefsey Morfin At 03:06 30/10/00, you wrote: >Mr. Morfin- >You wrote: > > I suppose this situation you describe both results from the lack of > > understanding of the importance of the involved issues by the @large > > members and the perfect understanding by some of those thinking > > having an industrial interest in managing them to their own benefit. > >There is a knowledge gap. And it is not easy for those who have been >the purveyors of the knowledge to share it with others. > > > I believe that to the contrary, the important of the IP addressing > > plan makes of the best interest of every concerned parties that the > > largest number of stakeholders may contribute. As an active @large > > member from France, I certainly desire to see @large people to > > become more involved in these matters. > >It is important for that to happen. I think that the new @large >directors, if they are made aware of the ASO proposals and >discussion, will help to bring @large members into it. But they must >first be made aware of the need for their intervention and for the >broadening of this process. > > > I am interested to know if you are an experience person in this and > > if you have an establish doctrine we might support. > >I am not an experienced person in the realm of IP address >allocation. I do know that the present system, if it can be called >that, is the historical outgrowth of allocation by fiat, and that >the present registries were created by a small core of those people >who created the Internet. I also know, from ISPs I have dealt with, >that the criteria and economics of address allocation have not been >decided through a representative process of those who use the >addresses, but by those with a seniority claim to that authority. It >seems clear, then, that the creation of new registries, at a time >when the Internet is growing up to its future role in the world, >needs to be done in a new and more inclusive fashion. > > > My own opinion > > is that the priority is for common people to clearly understand what > > is at stake, to study the impact in their own field and to jointly > > develop a working protocol to make an inventory of their requests so > > operations, technology, every industry, privacy, media convergences, > > administrative, political and legal, etc.. points of views may be > considered > > otherwise the impacts and the costs of the patches in the coming > > decades and centuries will be dramatic. > >Planning ahead, opening up to the feedback and influence of users, >and entering into a decision-making process based on multilateral >dialogue certainly do seem to make good sense. > > > This call for comments is obviously sent to all the @large Members > > of this list. I will take an example: I would be interested in comments > > about the impact and the cost of the recent ARIN suggestion about > > CNAMES. > >I'm sure that this and other issues would benefit immensely from a >broad dialogue. > > > Some paragraphs in the proposed document for new RIRs seem > > to lead to very important changes in the Internet management > > which IMHO should be publicly debated in the press? Please > > correct me if I am wrong. > >It may not be possible yet for the broader public that reads the >non-specialist press to appreciate the issues, but perhaps the >specialist Internet press could be usefully involved. At any rate, >there is now a broader-based community involved in the Internet >governance process, through the @large membership, and they >certainly should be given the opportunity to discuss the issues. > >M. Sondow * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request@aso.icann.org *