Re: [Internetgovtech] Transition to the web

[David Conrad <[e-mail]>]

Miles,

On Jul 12, 2014, at 7:05 PM, Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Well, the RFC's specfically exclude domain and address functions, and preclude charging for anything - so that all comes from the DOC contract.

No. It means that policy issues are dealt with outside of the context of RFC 2860.  That does not imply that the authority rests within the DoC contract which did not even exist until the late '90s. If you traveled back in time to the mid-90s and asked the folks who ran the RIRs, I can say with some certainty that the authority for coordination of addresses came from the membership of the RIRs, not the US government (in fact, the RIRs provided funding for the IANA when the NSF/DARPA contracts ended and before DOC unilaterally asserted its authority to define the future of what eventually (and very unfortunately) became known as "Internet Governance").

> To the extent that anybody has "chartered" ICANN to play IANA - that seems to be where it comes from, as a follow-on to the old SRI-NIC contract.

That is one perspective, one that was popular within the US government and very few other places. There are other perspectives, including the one I've been mentioning and the arguments for those perspectives are as valid as yours are.

However, the arguments those differing perspectives lead to are also pointless because in the end, the role that the IANA Function operators performs is to implement what the communities it serves require it implements. It is a coordinative function that ISPs, resolver operators, registry operators, etc., voluntarily agree to participate in. If the IANA Function operators screw up, then the communities will choose to assign the function(s) to another entity. Period.

>> What would stop the IETF/IESG/IAB from deciding to pick their own "IANA" and having that IANA provide protocol parameter allocation, modifications, and deletion services under the terms the IETF/IESG/IAB permits?
> Well, that is the $64,000 dollar question underlying all this transition stuff, isn't it.

No. The transition stuff is trying to figure out how to not disrupt the way the Internet works while removing NTIA from the functions it provides. As far as I can tell, those functions are:

1) ensure ICANN has followed its own processes in validating changes to the root zone;
2) provide a mechanism by which ICANN can be held accountable for its actions;
3) facilitate obtaining exemptions for dealing with entities under sanction in order to provide registry services; and
4) reduce the risk ICANN will be subject to inappropriate legal, economic, and/or geo-political pressure.

(I've been told #3 isn't that big an issue anymore, but don't have direct knowledge -- haven't been at ICANN for 4 years now and I'm told things have changed)

However, instead of dealing with that issue, my impression is that people on this list and elsewhere have been far more focused on whether or not a mailing list is used for communication instead of a web-based forum and how that demonstrates ICANN is incompetent, inappropriate, and/or evil.

> The transition group is charged with figuring out what comes next.  Let's try to work out some of the details.  

Great idea!

> The question of who pays for the IETF-related IANA functions seems to be one of those details.


That is not a function that is currently performed by NTIA. Section 4.4 and 4.5 of RFC 2860 is explicit that ICANN may not charge for IETF-related IANA services. The existing arrangement appears to be working and I have heard no one (other than perhaps yourself) arguing that this is an issue that needs to be addressed as part of the transition. In particular, neither the chair of the IETF, the chair of the IAB, nor ICANN's CEO have suggested that the MOU needs to be revised/terminated to allow ICANN to charge for IETF-related registry services. I'm unclear why you think it is an issue.

Regards,
-drc