Re: [Internetgovtech] Contracts, what problems we are solving

Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Tue, 15 July 2014 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFC61A0165 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iamsa8iPqCRu for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from abenaki.wabanaki.net (nike.wampumpeag.net [67.42.198.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08DB01A0164 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frog.local ([67.42.198.93]) by abenaki.wabanaki.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s6FNRS3v069508 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:27:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net)
Message-ID: <53C5B8E0.4030505@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:27:28 -0700
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internetgovtech@iab.org
References: <53C06E7C.4010903@gmail.com> <CAD_dc6ihUvV8SDkmoc3fGHWoOoR6nFhRz-=tgCjKnuNvRO2JXw@mail.gmail.com> <53C0F1D9.3090400@cisco.com> <53C17B5C.4090600@abenaki.wabanaki.net> <C5750A628D4D973F3C44F6DC@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <53C1B2C6.40501@meetinghouse.net> <72F8472D-2913-4BEC-9260-6DAC7791BBF8@virtualized.org> <53C1DD6C.8030501@gmail.com> <43DD1894-54A8-44D0-AE58-6F3D395F43DD@ericsson.com> <53C4000C.4030401@dcrocker.net> <20140715142048.GE8847@mx1.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20140715100237.08757120@resistor.net> <CEC25F70-D126-488A-8BC7-1629598D3956@shinkuro.com> <EEC016BC-49F3-43AD-8B52-5E2A7B0F9C29@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <EEC016BC-49F3-43AD-8B52-5E2A7B0F9C29@istaff.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/WY0ZKkBJcqiicgkEU4bzq1h1ECo
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Contracts, what problems we are solving
X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work <internetgovtech.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.iab.org/mail-archive/web/internetgovtech/>
List-Post: <mailto:internetgovtech@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 23:27:33 -0000

On 7/15/14 12:10 PM, John Curran wrote:
> While I seriously doubt such a change would be prudent from an overall Internet
> stability perspective ...

See below.

> So, proceeding ahead with the respective authorities "as given", what exactly
> would be the practical result of the changing the IANA registry operator to
> some other hypothetical party (e.g. "XYZ Corp.")
>
> For the IETF, the "IANA" would be some new team at XYZ, running similar systems
> to the existing IANA team for generating and updating various protocol parameter
> tables on IANA.ORG.

When Pinkus Warburg did the management buyout of the North American 
Numbering Plan Administrator business unit from Lockheed Martin in 1999 
everything remained the same -- office space, management, and hardly 
surprisingly, the NANPA Function, mandated in the Telecommunications Act 
of 1996. (Yes, the L-M office space was dowdy.)

This is "below." The Chicago NPAC did not go down, nor did the overall 
circuit switching system (in +1 only) become unstable in 1999, though 
its ownership changed.

Eric