Re: [Internetgovtech] Transition to the web

[Christian de Larrinaga <[e-mail]>]

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?

Does gov.us define this as part of its contract with ICANN for IANA? Is
it a cost that is being cross subsidised in the round from overall
revenue flows at ICANN?

Does IETF pay into this pool?

What happens when the overlying terms from gov.us for IANA contract
comes to an end from IETF perspective? Working through these issues and
being clear how IETF is able to exert what it wants from IANA registry
functions is what I mean by IETF needing to take initiative.



Christian



S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> At 03:24 10-07-2014, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
>> However the intent of my point is that IETF is in danger of delegating
>> its own responsibilities by allowing the debates to be framed to protect
>> the interests of, and be owned and implemented by another institution
>> that is itself a vested interested party. That is ICANN. So there is
>> quite a bit of back peddling needed.
>
> I don't think that the IETF (the word does not include the IAB) is in
> danger.  As mentioned above this is ICANN; parental guidance is advised.
>
>> Taking the initiative here is also important. IETF has responsibility
>> to  establish process and requirements for any future contract it
>> directly makes without US Gov intercession with a registry operator
>> (whether that is at IANA/ ICANN or anywhere)
>
> The IETF does not have any responsibility.  The IESG may receive
> questions if there is a problem with the protocol registry.
>
> My guess is that there is a view that the IETF can be used to solve
> problems with the other IANA Functions.  The current IETF position is
> that those issues are not an IETF matter.  Anyone disagreeing with
> that can talk to Mr Housley.
>
>> Brian talks about "oversight with teeth". That is looking increasingly
>> unlikely. The alternative is undersight with teeth and that is where
>> IETF and other bottom up communities can develop.
>
> I would not describe the IETF as a bottom-up community.  As I think
> about all this the words "welfare state for the rich" comes to my mind.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> P.S. I made a mistake in a previous message about the number of IAB
> members.  There were two IAB members who were ignored.
> _______________________________________________
> Internetgovtech mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga
FBCS, CITP, MCMA
-------------------------
@ FirstHand
-------------------------
[phone]
[e-mail]
-------------------------