Subject: FYI -- IAB statement on IANA RFI

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:03:59 -0500

As you may have seen, the Department of Commerce has recently
published a Request for Interest (RFI), for the whole IANA function:

http://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOC/OS/OAM/Reference%2DNumber%2DDOCNTIARFI0001/SynopsisR.html

While the RFI was not a surprise, the IETF was not consulted in any way
about the technical parameter assignment portion of the IANA work.
As noted in the message we just sent in reply to this RFI,  this gives
us some concern in terms of potential impact for IETF work.

http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence/IANA-2006/IAB-RFI-Input.pdf

The IAB will be working through this year with the IAOC to ensure the
IETF continues to have a suitable technical parameter assignment
function.

Leslie,
for the IAB.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:14:30 +0100

It's been pointed out that the note to DoC was actually sent by
the IAB and the IETF *Chair* not the IETF as whole.

Obviously, the timescale of this RFI was too short for the
IETF as a whole to debate a response. In fact, it was even too short
for us to spot this nit.

     Brian

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 09:27:22 -0800 (PST)

> IETF as a whole to debate a response. In fact, it was even too short

Or to run a spell checker?  It would have been better to not answer
instead of doing such a haphazard job.  This was not an effective
document either in terms of process or substance.

Carl

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:21:15 +0100

>document either in terms of process or substance.

Dear Carl,
the problem is that IETF and IAB do not want to accept the real world.
http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=10717
And the real  world is catching up. The USG is in a real world. 
Their, our world.

What to do now?
- to ignore? possibly losing control on the IANA.
- to adapt in creating an IETF server? possibly creating a mess for 
nothing if they do not sell? worse if they sell?
- lto ead in reviewing the architecture towards a fully distributed 
network with concerted IANA, one a country? a language?

NOT an easy choice. But a choice which has to be made.
jfc

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 17:03:21 -0500 (EST)

my detailed notes below ...

> http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=10717

I strongly support this move by china.  t is about time that IANA
recognize the obvious - open up the root.  This is a good start.  China is
quick to learn the technological trap they have fallen into.  They need
ICANN as much as ICANN needs them.  It also shows a very interesting
simularity to what happened at the Public-Root.  There we had Turey as our
partner - like the chinese - not the best of human rights partners but
partners non the less brougt together through necessitty.

> And the real  world is catching up. The USG is in a real world.

will they wake up to reality - what we will see is a compromise.  but they
chinese are ball breakers - and I think it's high time someone break some
balls at ICANN.  Go china go.

> NOT an easy choice. But a choice which has to be made.

The PublicRoot structure is the ultimate choice framework which provides
for shared operability.

regards
joe