Hi, On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 01:53:40PM -0600, John Poole wrote:
In addition, if IETF or RIRs or anyone else--governments included--choose not to participate in IANA or ICANN, let them walk--no one is irreplaceable. ICANN, the IANA functions operator, should never be subject to extortionate demands from any source.
If I understand it what you are saying, then I think there may be a deep misconception here. The IANA functions provided to the RIRs and to the IETF are IANA functions _by definition_. If the RIRs or IETF decline to participate, then those IANA functions go with them. That's not an extortionate demand, that's a matter of definition. For instance, the IETF publishes parameters for the protocols it produces. Those parameters have historically been identified as "IANA considerations" in IETF documents (and other RFCs, but leave that wrinkle aside for now). If the IETF had someone other than the provider of IANA services to RIRs or the names community do it, they would still be the same sort of thing. Similarly, if the IETF decided to start calling these "IETF parameter considerations" and to publish them at ietfppr.org instead of iana.org, nothing would change about the nature of the things (but it would be inconvenient to a lot of people). So, in an important sense the protocol parameters and number communities _are_ irreplacable in IANA: if they were to leave, it would no longer be the three-legged system that it now is, and would become just the clerk of the root zone. There isn't someone else who can come along and produce IETF protocols. Now, if you're saying that the IETF can't force ICANN to provide that service, you're right. That's why ICANN can terminate the agreement with 6 months' notice. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com