Re: from Ira Magaziner Re: IETF relationship to new IANA

["Steven M. Bellovin" <[e-mail]>]

>One wonders why, of course. I mean, so far as I can tell there is no
>legal basis for his involvement. It appears that he's decided to
>insert himself.

Your other points notwithstanding, there is indeed a very clear and
compelling reason for White House involvement -- the NSI contract.
NSI is operating .COM under a contract from NSF.  This contract expires
March 31.  And NSF has previously shown that they can assign that duty
to whomever they please -- SRI was the previous operator.  IANA is also
government-funded.  *Something* has to be decided; retaining the status quo
is also a decision.

The situation today is far more complex, of course, not least because
very many people care about who runs .COM and what other TLDs there are.
Furthermore, since there is disagreement *among several executive-branch
agencies* about what to do, it's not only reasonable, it's proper for
the White House to get involved.

Clearly, there are limits to what Magaziner and the White House can do.
There is absolutely no basis whatsoever for them to assert any degree of
control, influence, etc., over the IETF, the IAB, the IESG, or ISOC.
That very specifically means that RFC editing will remain under the IETF's
control.  Numeric parameter assignment is, too, except as we delegate it.
The IAB statement indicated that we wish to continue letting IANA do
this, even the new IANA.  Now, we can disagree -- as you have -- with
the wisdom of having any part in the new structure.  But as best I can
tell -- and this is based on what I've heard from various IETF folks
who met with Magaziner and/or contacted him since the GP came out --
this much is entirely our decision.  Magaziner is not mandating it,
because -- as you've pointed out -- he can't.

			Speaking for myself and not the IAB,

			--Steve Bellovin