On Sat, 8 Dec 2012, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Just submitted a private comment on http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/iana-kpis-20nov12-en.htm > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/iana-kpis/msg00000.html > > Would be interested to know if anyone thinks I missed the point. I feel it is possible i did, since I thought the report was relatively vacuous. But of course that means I might be the one who is vacant. > > I think there is still a day of so left if anyone else want to comment on this. It isn't related to names, but it is related to IANA doing its function and putting out performance reports. I thought it was sad that no one had sent in a comment. So I tried. > > avri hi Avri and all, i am similarly confused by the "consultation" referred to in the document (November 2012) _Consultation on Internet Number Resources Performance Standards_, a short .pdf document. within the document itself, there appears to be no date other then November 2012, but my pdf reader shows the document may have meta-data of "20Nov12". i am also concerned that the participants within ICANN nor the implied externat "consultantcy" were not identified. most concerning, however, is the delay in publishing the public announcement of allocations. the data should be published simultaneously with the allocations because filtering of unallocated (rogue self-assignments by unauthorized spammers, crackers, etc. is good defense by ISP's and end users. when addresses are delegated, they should no longer be blocked. there is no explanation of why up to a two-business-day delay should be a transparancy goal. note that the case of IPv4 the performance indicator is to "begin" allocation once trigger has been reached (with no requirement that the actual allocation be done timely, so a delay of ten years would still meet the 100% requirement so long as they "begin" the process immediately. in the case of IPv6 and ASN numbers, there is to be an auto-ack ticket system, and then (assuming the request meets policy) the delegation is to be done, and after delegation the requester is to be notified. the performance measurement is silent if the IANA function declines to do the requested allocation (and suggests that good performance is to limit communication to no more than the two replies. in this case (more frequent in the future than IPv4 delegations) there is no justification for the public delay, since the updating of the registry and the public announcement of the allocation could be made before the requester is notified. the transparancy of the process to the public is made difficult by the policy to keep justification information submitted by requesters secret so the information is never published. so in the end, this is one of the darkest closets of the workings of the Internet. -ron