Re: [Internetgovtech] IANA Transition (was: what *is* a succession plan?)

S Moonesamy <> Sat, 13 September 2014 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA9681A0797 for <>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 06:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZZc32so97l0B for <>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 06:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C7A1A06DE for <>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 06:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8DDkNV8027481 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 13 Sep 2014 06:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1410615996; x=1410702396; bh=FgNo8AcuY454URVSdlD20Clh/fWZZILm5OSCbuoLRiM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=VhHfwUow3o8I8ctQd5/rmEcEHNjP01HdszU2XsN86zff2tcx2UM74kun57KHShoMQ s04+GSDR36wYrwjM+K0njUt632jUUzdYDIof4otnR1J4rnOGuo7S7ytXbaHMbQMt// TPE31BMqz/Qc7WdRvz/e/AuZsnnUKa+a6Ce6cnCk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1410615996; x=1410702396;; bh=FgNo8AcuY454URVSdlD20Clh/fWZZILm5OSCbuoLRiM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=tSypWwBAGfiOx2jz+wqtsU741WhX6Katm+QHUIxw/XJvg1c0ZkJAhnq1MxE1jawf2 rwWCbNtOxcz4/7BUH76jzFsyNESHsFMMyd/kqyRmYGWtMox4Sb+WdoOTTdQVsxz0B6 g9gMKhIB2GD3VVNELQRMvDVcDZpupNZQ1dwfvK3c=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 23:30:02 -0700
To: David Conrad <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] IANA Transition (was: what *is* a succession plan?)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:46:40 -0000

Hi David,
At 18:38 12-09-2014, David Conrad wrote:
>I personally see that as a bit of a problem.

I could say the same.  The follow-up question is what have I done 
about it.  My answer is "nothing".

>I scanned that thread and remain unenlightened.

Technical standards do not work within a vacuum.  Adoption is 
influenced by political, legal, and commercial considerations.  This 
is where governments come into play.

>That may be (there are a lot of cultures out there and I'm in no 
>position to judge),

>however the question at hand is whether or not the NTIA IANA 
>Functions contract "authorizes" the IANA protocol parameter 
>function, i.e., if NTIA were to change their mind and decide to 
>contract the IANA protocol parameter function to Most Hated Company, 
>Inc., whether or not that would have any impact on the IETF.  Other 
>than potentially requiring the IETF community to update a few 
>documents indicating where folks should look for protocol parameter 
>registries (i.e., _not_ at a site operated by MHC, Inc.), I 
>personally don't think so.  As such, I've been quite surprised at 
>the discussion over on ianaplan.

The protocol parameters stuff is the least controversial of the 
Functions.  It is basically about writing a formal response to a 
government.  From

   "As the IAB has noted in the past, the IETF determines the policies under
    which registrations are to be made for the protocol parameters, and in most
    cases, defines the methods and supplies the expertise for approving those
    registrations. The implementation of this role is documented in a 
    of understanding between ICANN and the IETF.  The IAB notes that 
    MOU makes reference to the IANA contract.  While we understand that it is
    out of scope for this Notice, that arrangement has generally worked to the
    mutual satisfaction of the IETF and ICANN.  However, the IAB believes that
    it is critical that these functions of the IETF, and the corresponding
    functions of IANA, not be disrupted by any transition of ICANN
    responsibilities, or by other changes to either the DNS Project activities
    or other ICANN functions."

The only change [1] between then and now is that the IAB Chair and 
the IETF Chair called for the internationalization of IANA [2].  For 
what it is worth, there can be a regulatory aspect to a protocol 
parameter registry but it does not have anything to do with the 
internationalization of IANA.  Anyway, the discussions are about 
legacy stuff mixed with internet governance.

S. Moonesamy

1. I am ignoring the DNSSEC stuff.