Re: [Internetgovtech] Transition to the web

[McTim <[e-mail]>]

It does show the evolution of the role over time, I thought you would
get that that was the point, apologies for being obtuse.

It does detail the RFCs from the early days where the Registry
functions are first mentioned.

In any case it is a starting point.

As far as specific other docs, well the ASO MoU is a good place to start:

http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm  this is the
second, there was an earlier one in 99.

Of course there are earlier RFCs than this that lay out the address
registry scheme.

You can find them conveniently here:

http://www.ipamworldwide.com/ipv4-addressing.html

Start with 2050 Section 3 Registration perhaps

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2050/

but this has been obsoleted by 7020:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7020/


On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Miles Fidelman
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> McTim wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Miles Fidelman
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/07/2014 11:38, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/07/2014 00:27, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good points. But I should be clearer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was thinking of IANA as the contracted registry operator for those
>>>>>>> IANA considerations in RFCs.
>>>>>>> There is a cost to operating this which IETF as far as I am aware is
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> paying for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who is paying?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't matter, unless one side or the other gives notice to cancel
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> IETF/ICANN MOU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >From a fairness PoV, domain name holders benefit from the existence
>>>>>> and viability of IETF protocols - without those protocols, there
>>>>>> would be no Internet traffic. So it's entirely reasonable that
>>>>>> the cost of the protocol registries is in practice a levy on domain
>>>>>> name holders. User pays.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> More than that.. by designating ICANN to perform the IANA functions,
>>>>> IETF is essentially granting ICANN an exclusive license to charge for
>>>>> those functions.  I.e., IETF may not be paying, but they are providing
>>>>> something to ICANN for which ICANN can charge a fee.  (Not that
>>>>> different from a franchise agreement.  McDonald's doesn't pay its
>>>>> franchisees, the franchisees pay them.)
>>>>
>>>> No we didn't and aren't. Please re-read clauses 4.4 and 4.5 of RFC 2860.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Point taken.
>>>
>>> So where does the designation of IANA/ICANN as the domain and IP address
>>> authority come from, along with the "franchise" to charge for those
>>> functions?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority#History
>
>
> Not a particularly definitive, or detailed, source.
>
> The model of standards body and designated registration authority is pretty
> well defined one.  For each specific case, how authority has been delegated,
> things get pretty murky.
>
> For IANA (and be reflection ICANN), this all remains just a bit murky (at
> least to me).
>
> Pretty clearly, one set of IANA responsibilities and authorities flow from
> RFC 2680, or rather RFC 2680 documents various practices and agreements, and
> another set from the NTIA contract.  And, as I was reminded RFC 2680
> excludes domain registration from its scope and excludes charging from its
> scope.
>
> So where, precisely, do the responsibilities for domain registration and IP
> address management come from, along with the authority to charge for those
> services.  By precisely, I mean chapter and verse reference to contractual
> documents (along the lines of "clauses 4.4 and 4.5 of RFC 2860").
>
> It strikes me that, whatever replaces those clauses, in a post NTIA world,
> is where a responsibility to financially support the full range of IANA
> functions, should be placed; and it's rather critical for this not to get
> overlooked in the transition.  I.e., part of IANA's post-NTIA "franchise" to
> manage domains and addresses should require support of the full range of
> IANA functions.  And, I guess that also raises the issue of what happens if,
> at some future date, IETF decides that the IANA functions under its purvue
> might better be served elsewhere?
>
>
> Miles Fidelman
>
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internetgovtech mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech