Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.
Avri: Thank you for your reply (below). I do not agree that ICG "precluded any solution that focused on maintaining a single IANA." 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. Best regards, John Poole Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 11:50:39 -0500
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model. Message-ID: <54EB5A5F.1090400@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On 23-Feb-15 10:34, John Poole wrote:
4. I do not understand your statement (below) "as was foredained by the ICG?" When and where did ICG "foredain" the idea of splitting IANA?
By dividing the topic as they did, they precluded any solution that focused on maintaining a single IANA. By creating a framework that precluded integrated models, they fore ordained, in my opinion, that an operational split in IANA would persist at the conceptual level.
Adding that the Protocol operational community has, and wishes to maintain, a contract that says they could split IANA with 6 months notice means that all solutions for the IANA Stewardship Transition will be subject to splitting as the solution to Protocols and Numbers issues. I beleive we need solutions that help make that less likely to happen.
avri
Perhaps I am showing my ignorance of a nuance here but I would have thought it was the other way around, ICANN is replaceable, the IETF and RIRs will walk away and select a new IANA functions operator outside of ICANN if necessary, or at least that has been my understanding and reading of their ICG submissions? Very open to correction by more educated people than myself here! On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:53, John Poole <jp1@expri.com<mailto:jp1@expri.com>> wrote: 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.
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
participants (3)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
James Gannon -
John Poole