Subject: Re: Future of IANA (and IETF)

From: Billy Biggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 07:32:32 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> >-- William Allen Simpson wrote:
> > 
> > As it should be the IAB's responsibility to secure funding for the IANA
> > function.  Both the RFC Editor and IANA serve the IETF and IRTF through
> > the IAB.
> 
> As far as the IANA technical function of assigning protocol parameter 
> values is concerned, I agree, and if the funding for that function 
> becomes an issue, the IAB will have to take up the problem.

Shouldn't this be a problem even if there is funding for this function?  I
mean, where the funding comes from decides who has control.  I think we
should be much less worried about whether or not the job gets done today,
but rather who's calling the shots tomorrow.

I would much rather see the technical aspects of the IANA including
protocol assignment be independantly funded by the IAB and keep the
technical power where it belongs - with the engineers.  Not with some new
political corporation that answers to the new registry business.

I don't think the USG wants to give up control.  They want to make sure
the internet is still run from the US and not an international body.

> 
>   Brian Carpenter (IAB Chair)
> 

--
Billy Biggs
Division 8 Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 14:31:48 +0000

Billy,

I'm not too worried about this nor am I unduly paranoid about
the US Govt (well, I live in England:). But yes, if it looked
as if there was any attempt at political control over port
assignments I think the IAB would re-assert its port assignment
authority pretty quickly. We haven't given it away that I know
of (see RFC 1601).

  Brian Carpenter

>-- Billy Biggs wrote:

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 02:06:40 +1100

Date:        Tue, 3 Feb 1998 07:32:32 -0500 (EST)
    From:        Billy Biggs <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | Shouldn't this be a problem even if there is funding for this function?  I
  | mean, where the funding comes from decides who has control.

No it doesn't.

It really is difficult to believe that people here can't keep control
(power) and funding separate in their minds, they are two totally separate
concepts.

I know it is tempting to believe that whoever pays is necessarily in
control - but it simply isn't true.

The distinction is quite simple ... if I am in control, and I tell you to
do something (you being the contractor, employee, etc) and you don't, then I
fire you, and find someone else to do what I want for me.   On the other hand
if I am just providing funding, and you don't do what I want, then I stop
providing you with funding, and you go seek someone else to provide the
funding instead (if you're wise you have several funding sources already),
and then you do what you want to do, and I have nothing more to do with it
at all.

  | I would much rather see the technical aspects of the IANA including
  | protocol assignment be independantly funded by the IAB and keep the
  | technical power where it belongs - with the engineers.

Unfortunately, the IAB has no money.   All the IAB could do would be
to create some mechanism to collect funds from others.   It would probably
look not much different to what is currently being proposed.

  | I don't think the USG wants to give up control.  They want to make sure
  | the internet is still run from the US and not an international body.

Yes, of course.   As they should - they represent the US people, and they
ought to be trying to do the best for the US that they can - and if control
of the Internet would be a good thing to have, then it is probably their
responsibility to aim for that.   We (especially those of us outside the US)
should be arguing hard against that - we should be lobbying our governments
to tell the US govt that US control of the internet is not acceptable, and
that international control is required.

kre

---

From: Simon Spero <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:42:18 -0500 (EST)

> authority pretty quickly. We haven't given it away that I know

So you're saying the Internet should be run by the Port Authority? 

Simon