Subject: Future of IANA

From: Billy Biggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 00:00:12 -0500 (EST)

It seems that the government's proposal could bring about the
transformation of the IANA to a non-profit organization.

Does this include the role of RFC editor?  Where does the IETF stand in
all this??

Also, it seems that this new IANA will be funed by:
  1)  IP Allocation, ala ARIN, APNIC and RIPE
  2)  DNS registration

Could this possibly lead to a conflict of intrest with respect to new
innovations on the technical side of the internet?  I find it scary to
think of all this work being done to create two markets that don't really
have to exist.

For IP allocations, what happens when we move to IPv6 and this becomes
less of a concern?  Will the IANA be as poised to aid in a global exodus
from IPv4 to IPv6 with these groups calling the shots?  With more
addresses available, they lose their scarcity and therefore the high value
and price that ARIN/APNIC and RIPE all charge.

For DNS registration, so much money is being put into this current system
that moving to new technologies again becomes close to impossible.  What
happens if URNs or other forms of global identification become more
commercially viable?  It would not be in the intrests of a new IANA
organization to aid in the proliferation of these new protocols if that
means a loss of income.

My main concern here is if the innovation of the IETF will be
significantly hurt if we invest too heavily in a system built upon the
IPv4/DNS system and leave our highest authority (the IANA) dependant
completely on their existance.

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

---

From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 21:37:18 -0800 (PST)

>>>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998 00:00:12 -0500 (EST), Billy Biggs <[email-masked]> said:

  Billy> It seems that the government's proposal could bring about the
  Billy> transformation of the IANA to a non-profit organization.

  Billy> Does this include the role of RFC editor?  Where does the IETF stand in
  Billy> all this??

That is a very good question.

The IETF is only one of the users of the RFC publication service.

I think a better wording for the question is:

  "Does this include the RFC publication service?"

I believe there is general consensus that the RFC publication service
is badly stressed in many dimensions (volume, scope, IPR, timeliness,
procedures, ...) and needs attention and improvement.

...Mohsen.

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 14:59:43 +0800

Hi,

Sigh, I know I'm going to regret this...

>transformation of the IANA to a non-profit organization.

I would think this is a good thing -- having the IANA as an informal
non-project funded by the US Government doesn't strike me as a particularly
good way of handling the root of a global communications infrastructure.

>Does this include the role of RFC editor?  Where does the IETF stand in

I personally think the IETF should take over the responsibility of editing
the RFCs, perhaps by subcontracting it out to ISI (after all, they have the
experience)...

>I find it scary to

If it doesn't need to exist, it won't.

>less of a concern?  

What becomes less of a concern?  There's more address space in the free
pool now than there was a few years back.

>Will the IANA be as poised to aid in a global exodus
>from IPv4 to IPv6 with these groups calling the shots?  

I had thought the automagic configuration of IPv6 was going to do away with
the need for the registries.  If that is the case, I find it unlikely there
is anything the registries could do to restrain the deployment of v6.  Even
if it isn't the case, I suspect the registries would find it in their
interest to allocate v6 prefixes -- after all, if they don't their
membership will scream at them (and they are the folks who are paying the
bills).

That's sort of the key point here:  the registries operate under a model of
bottom up governance.  We are explicitly driven by our membership.  The
proposal would seem to be to propagate the model upwards, e.g., the IANA
(which sits on top of the registries) is driven from the bottom up by its
"membership".  Sort of like the way governments are supposed to work...

>With more

No. No. No. No. No.

While many people feel this is broken, the registry fees have NOTHING to do
with address scarcity in the current registry system.  All registries are
non-profit, operating on a cost recovery basis.  The fees paid are the fees
necessary to provide allocation SERVICE.  This should be obvious given if
you try to compute the price per address, it rapidly goes to zero as you
get larger amounts of address space.  You want the price of the registries
to go down?  Become a member of a registry.

Regards,
-drc

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 98 16:17:56 JST

DRC;

> good way of handling the root of a global communications infrastructure.

That's a US centric way to manage the Internet and you can't say
domain names under COM do not have to be US trade marks.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 08:50:59 +0000

>-- Billy Biggs wrote:

The RFC Editor function is separate from the IANA function today
but happens to be carried out by the same institution (ISI). It will
be the IAB's job to ensure that the RFC Editor function is funded
in future.
...
> For IP allocations, what happens when we move to IPv6 and this becomes

Huh? Why will it be less of a concern? In any case the IPv6 address
space was assigned to the IANA a long time ago (see RFC 1881 at 
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1881.txt ).

  Brian Carpenter (IAB Chair)

---

From: Daniel Karrenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 14:04:18 +0100

> Billy Biggs <[email-masked]> writes:
  > 

Billy,

the regional registries do not charge for the address space but for
registration *services*.  These services have multiple goals and
conservation is but one of them.  In addition there is registration
because you want a reliable independent registry of allocations which is
accessible to those who need it.  There is also aggregation because you
want to keep the routing system going.  An aside: The regional
registries are an important wheel in the process that makes CIDR work
and just imageine for a second it wouldn't have worked.  I personally
consider the story of CIDR deployment a prime example of the ability
of the Internet community to deploy working code and processes quickly. 

Further the regional registries are funded and governed bottom-up
by their users the local registries (mainly ISPs).  So whenever the ISPs
do something new like IPv6 the registries are quick to follow. 
Transitively the IANA will be funded by its users.  So it will react to
innovation and if it wants to stay in business it will react reasonably
quickly.

  > completely on their existance.

I share your concern about the impediments to innovation but the cause
for this is just the sheer size of the Internet these days.  The
governance structures are subject to the chanes imposed by the size. 
All in all they are still surprisingly lean and agile given the size of
the Internet! 

Daniel

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:21:48 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Masataka Ohta wrote:

> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 98 16:17:56 JST
> From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
> To: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Future of IANA
> 
> DRC;
> 

Domain names under COM (or NET or ORG) do not have to be and never have had
to be US tademarks.  I am aware of a number of such domain names that I know
are not registered trademars, at least not registered trademarks of the
domain name holder. 

While it is true that Network Solutions, Inc. (which currently manages the
above top level domains) is a US corporation with offices only in the US
and while they have a "trademark policy" some aspects of which many people
think are bad,
	that policy gives equal recognition and weight to registered
trademarks from any nation

See <http://rs.internic.net/domain-info/internic-domain-6.html>.

> 						Masataka Ohta

Donald
=====================================================================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd     +1 978-287-4877(tel)     [email-masked]
   318 Acton Street        +1 978-371-7148(fax)     [email-masked]
Carlisle, MA 01741 USA     +1 703-620-4200(main office, Reston, VA)
http://www.cybercash.com           http://www.privacy.org/ipc

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 98 12:09:18 JST

Donald;

You miss the point.

> are not registered trademars, at least not registered trademarks of the

The reason is because IANA is under the international administration
of IAB/ISOC.

> trademarks from any nation

The reason is because NSI is under the international administration
of IANA.

The international Internet must continue to be international.

The long established formal way to do so is through international treaty,
which is why ITU is involved in gTLD issues.

The attempt of US goverment to put IANA under the US administration
is simply wrong.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 05:28:18 +0100 (MET)

> The attempt of US goverment to put IANA under the US administration

i can folow your thoughts and would be very thankful and happy if 
isoc+afiliates takes/remains the responsibility for the global internet 
development

the internationalisation of the internet true the afiliation with other
international organisations is a good part of the work and vision of 
dr.vinton cerf 

i personaly would apreciate very much his leadership and contribution 
to the further development of the international and global internet 

thanks
sascha

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 10:34:43 +0800

Ohta-san,

>That's a US centric way to manage the Internet 

Agreed.  I don't think this is a good idea.

>and you can't say

Well, I can, but I suspect there are people who might disagree with me :-).
 I suspect the whole issue of domains treated as trademarks will result in
people coming up with a numbering scheme for names... blech.

Regards,
-drc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 00:18:42 -0500

> The international Internet must continue to be international.

No disagreement there....
 
> which is why ITU is involved in gTLD issues.

Which would you prefer?  Something that *does* work, most of the time,
informally, or waiting a nice long time for the "formal treaty" way of
doing things to get anything done?  Check out what year the follow-on to
X.400(88) came out...

I suppose we *could* all end up arguing about how to administer the root of
the X.500 directory tree instead.  Or some even more horrid creation.
And then find *some* way to get the entire world to hit the 'Pause' button
for several months while we all argue out an international standard
for how to do things.

> The attempt of US goverment to put IANA under the US administration

It may well be wrong in a nice moralistic/idealistic sense.  On the other
hand, IANA is the organizational equivalent of a rough consensus and
working code.

				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 98 17:43:17 JST

Valdis Kletnieks;

> doing things to get anything done?  Check out what year the follow-on to

Please don't forget the fact that ISOC is an international entity
recognized by ITU (at least part of ITU essential to the operation
of the Internet), but US goverment is not.

Do you mind the fact that US goverment must wait a nice long time for
the "formal treaty" way of doing things to get its private opinion
on IANA operation heard by the international community?

							Masataka Ohta