It depends on how you define Nexus. Currently the way number resource policy works is that global policy requires an identical policy be put through the policy development process in each of the 5 regional internet registries and adopted by all 5. It is then sent to the ASO AC (an elected body representing the 5 RIRs and their communities to ICANN) who validates that the 5 RIR policy processes were, in fact, followed and that identical (or nearly identical) policy was passed by each. If any differences need to be resolved, the ASO AC works with the RIRs in question to get those resolved through the policy processes. Once all 5 RIR communities have agreed on a common policy, the ASO AC ratifies it and sends it to the ICANN board for a final ratification. Once the ICANN board ratifies it, it is global policy.
Generally, these policies are limited to the ones which govern how the RIRs interact with IANA to receive and/or return number resources that are managed by the RIRs. This particular mechanism has worked quite well for many years. It would be a shame to see ICANN take a more active (destructive) role in the process. Owen On Jun 19, 2014, at 12:59 , Barry Shein <b...@world.std.com> wrote: > > But I thought ICANN was supposed to be the new and future nexus for > all things internet governance? > > On June 19, 2014 at 13:57 morrowc.li...@gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Barry Shein <b...@world.std.com> wrote: >>> >>> Really. You're really completely discounting ICANN in having any >>> leadership or participative role in the IPv4/IPv6 transition? >>> >> >> What leadership position have you seen them take ASIDE from marketing >> (in the last 2-3 yrs, but most of that has been ISOC not ICANN >> directly) in the last 5 yrs or so? >> >> -chris > > -- > -Barry Shein > > The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
