[128189] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Mon Jul 26 01:42:49 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <87AE246B-A12D-4A66-94A7-53C96303687B@delong.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:05:56 +0200
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Owen,
> Correct, now, what portion of ICANN's budget is related to the NRO =
sector?
Read the ICANN budget. ICANN does not budget things that way.
You asked "explain how the numbers side of IANA pays for anything when =
the RIRs stop funding it?"
Doug and I, who have a bit of knowledge on the subject, have told you =
IANA does not "pay for anything".
ICANN is a signatory to a contract with the US Department of Commerce =
that requires ICANN to provide the IANA functions, of which numbers =
allocation is one. Failure to perform any of the functions would be =
interpreted by DoC as a breach of contract. If the NRO did not =
contribute the (currently) 1.5% (which they have withheld in the past), =
ICANN would still be required to perform the number allocation function =
(as they did even when the RIR contribution was withheld). There is =
_no_ linkage between the contributions made by any stakeholder and the =
operation of the IANA functions contract.
In the case of coordinating ULA assignments, I have no doubt IANA staff =
at ICANN _could_ provide the function quite easily since most of the =
infrastructure and processes are already in place for other services =
ICANN provides as part of the IANA functions contract. The question of =
whether or not the community, including folks from the RIR community and =
the IETF, want ICANN to perform that service is entirely different, and =
highly non-technical.
Regards,
-drc
