Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Key elements of the transition of IANA stewardship
Dear John,
Thank you for this. I think that it might be appropriate to agree to
disagree at this stage, but please see embedded comments below.
Thanks and best,
Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran@arin.net]
> Sent: jeudi, 11. septembre 2014 17:29
> To: rhill@hill-a.ch
> Cc: David Conrad; ianaxfer@apnic.net
> Subject: Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Key elements of the transition of IANA
> stewardship
>
>
> On Sep 11, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran@arin.net]
> >> ...
> >> Why do you presume "formal designation"?
> >
> > Because there are formal documents: the ICANN Bylaws, the
> contract with NTIA
> > for the IANA functions and, at least for protocol parameters,
>
> The USG/NTIA contract is not have to be the model that used going
> forward;
Agreed. But the ICANN Bylaws, the MoU between IETF and ICANN, and the MoU
between NRO and ICANN are still there and the question is what, if any
changes are needed.
> remember, NTIA asking the community to develop a plan for
> transition of the
> IANA Stewardship and that presumes the NTIA contract is
> extinguished in the
> process. We need to maintain that structure just as much as we
> need to keep
> punched tape readers on our laptops, simply because that was used
> in the past...
Indeed some past features can be jettisoned, but other past features are
retained because they are useful, for example ASCII character sets.
>
> > the MoU between ICANN and IETF.
>
> The MOU between ICANN and IETF is for provision of IANA services,
> and is not
> a formal designation of "authority" that you seem to be
> desperately seeking.
I am not seeking any designation of authority. I'm noting that, in my view,
certain documents establish such authority. I recognize that you disagree
with this. And I recognize that we disagree regarding the scope of the MOU
between ICANN and IETF, hence I SNIP below.
SNIP
>
> You did not answer my question [below], nor even reference it on your
reply.
Indeed, I thought it was obvious that this was so hypothetical that it was a
rhethorical question to which no specific reply is possible. However,
please see below.
>In
> order to clarify the matter of these registries, please answer this
> question:
>
> If the IETF were to create a new version of the Internet Protocol
> (version 42), who would be the "policy authority" for the associated
> IANA IPv42 number registry (and why?)
I suppose that would depend on the exact nature of the new version, on the
reasons why it was created, and on what the community thought would be the
most appropriate policy authority. For example, RFCs 1466 and 1518
specified certain policies and thus, implicitly, policy authority. The same
might (or might not) be the case for a future IPv42. Conversely, the number
registry for IPv42 might well be the RIRs, just as it is for IPv6.
>
> Thank you,
> /John
>
>
>
>
>