Subject: Re: IANA-lite

From: "William Allen Simpson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 98 15:25:04 GMT

> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 20:29:21 +0000
> From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
> Do you believe that the IETF publishing an IANA
> Charter or revised IAB Charter at this point in history
> would change anything in the realities of what's
> happening?
>
Yes.

The lack of an IANA Charter, and the inspecific language in the IAB
Charter, has left us open to the "green" paper assertion that the
current structure is not "formal and robust".

The change in the IAB Charter is in reaction to the realities of what's
happening.  If nothing were happening, the weak language in the Charter
would not be an issue.

But the most important reason that we will revise the IAB Charter to
create IANA-lite is because a dozen or so folks have asked for it on
this list in the past month, for diverse reasons, and the idea itself
has been floating around for much longer.  Our process is required to be
responsive to the reasonable requests of the IETF.  Do we really _need_
another year-long angry debate?

Tactically, to protect our closest held engineering functions, they need
to be separately and clearly specified.  Thus, should the attack be
successful against one part, the other parts are more mobile, and can
attempt to evade the attack.

Strategically, the revision of the IAB Charter is needed to demonstrate
that we are in control of our own processes, but willing to change
details based on new input from an expanding community.

Finally, both the proposed rule corporation and the 40th IETF announced
corporation need a Charter of some kind.  The IANA serves the IETF, and
not vice versa.  Any Charter will be generated here, in a public WG
process.  None other will be acceptable.

Could the IESG please delegate this to the POISSON WG for review?

[email-masked]
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32