Re: WCIT outcome?

[John Day <[e-mail]>]

Dave,

I was thinking about that after I sent my email.  I actually don't 
think there is an argument for ITU holding the IANA function.  The 
assignment of addresses should be done in such a way as to facilitate 
routing.  This requires agreements among providers, but not 
governments.  Going back to governments no longer own the networks, 
then there is no reason for it be in the purview.

Domain names I guess would follow since there are merely macro 
strings for network addresses.

So I see no argument for ITU to be involved.

Take care,
John

At 10:46 AM -0800 1/1/13, Dave Crocker wrote:
>On 1/1/2013 12:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>Also, it is exactly because ITU was in charge of resource allocations
>>such as radio spectrum and top-level POTS dialling codes that it was
>>a very plausible potential home for IANA in 1997-8, before ICANN was
>>created. Some of the ITU people who were active in that debate were just
>>as active in the preparation for WCIT in 2012.
>
>
>Just to avoid any misconstruction here:
>
>      While there might have been a plausible case to be made, for 
>having the ITU house the IANA functions, I believe there was no 
>(serious) pursuit of that alternative at the time.
>
>Around that time, the ITU did have a representative who participated 
>in the ill-fated pre-ICANN IAHC effort (of which I was a part, 
>including editor of its proposal).
>
>But the IAHC only had the very narrow scope of suggesting a few 
>gTLDs to add.  It had no formal part in the much larger question of 
>finding a home for IANA.
>
>d/
>--
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net