[NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments

Richard Hill rhill at hill-a.ch
Sat Jan 10 10:40:15 CET 2015


Please see one comment below.

Thanks and best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Izumi Okutani [mailto:izumi at nic.ad.jp]
> Sent: vendredi, 9. janvier 2015 17:09
> To: rhill at hill-a.ch; ianaxfer at nro.net
> Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA
> Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments
>
>
SNIP

>
> > Regarding III.A.1, on some of the RIR lists there was some support for
> > moving the numbers part of the IANA function to the NRO (which could
> > subcontract it to one of the RIRs, or whatever).  Apparently
> there was not
> > sufficient support in CRISP to pursue that option. But I think that some
> > mention should be made of it, together with an explanation of why that
> > option was not pursued (other than "we are satisfied with ICANN's
> > performance to date").
>
> The element where support was confirmed in all RIR regions was stability
> and continuity of the IANA operation, which makes it important that we
> continue with the current IANA operator, which is functioning in term of
> stability as well.

As I've pointed out before, the top-level IP address block allocations
published on the IANA web site have not always been up to date.  At present,
016/8 is still shown as allocated to Digital Equipment Corporation, when in
fact it has been transferred to Hewlett Packard, as correctly shown in the
ARIN WHOIS, see:

  http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtm
l

Given that correct allocation information is found in the RIR WHOIS, I think
that some explanation is needed regarding the value-added of the present
IANA function, and how continuing it contributes to stability.

SNIP





More information about the ianaxfer mailing list