[Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?

David Huberman David.Huberman at microsoft.com
Sun Oct 19 07:23:26 EDT 2014


ICANN operates .arpa, one of the few (two?) TLDs they operate.  If the NRO were to perform the addressing functions currently performed by IANA, I do not think it would be appropriate for ICANN to operate the .arpa TLD.   Why do I think that?  

Reverse DNS and RPKI are the two functions RIRs perform which are operationally relevant on a second-by-second basis.  Properly functioning delegation within ip6.arpa and in-addr.arpa are crucial to rDNS's success.   I think this critical TLD should be operated by engineering organizations, and not an organization that exists solely for lawyers and professional meeting-goers, 99% of whom have no idea what .arpa is and how it works.[1]

Speaking only as an engineer (and as an especially clueful DNS engineer) don't you agree?  When you attend ICANN meetings, do you get the sense the attendees and participants have the internet's engineering's best interests in the forefront of their mind when they're "governing"?  John Crain won't be there forever to protect us, after all.

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing

From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 11:13 PM
To: iana-transition at arin.net
Subject: Re: [Iana-transition] What form of supervision is needed?

Dear colleagues,

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 06:08:04PM +0000, David Huberman wrote:
> B) The .arpa TLD needs to move to the NRO.  Then one of the RIRs should step up and take responsibility for its administration.

Last I checked (and a quick whois --
e.g. http://www.iana.org/whois?q=arpa -- makes me feel more confident
of this), arpa. was not something that is strictly under ICANN's
control.  Moreover, not everything in arpa. is related to numbering.
Perhaps David Huberman's is a suggestion that in-addr.arpa. and
ip6.arpa. need to move to NRO control?  That would be
less-eoncompassing than all of arpa.

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 06:51:23PM +0000, David Huberman wrote:
> But ICANN is working behind the scenes to solidify their position.  For example, I'm told
> that they want ownership of the IANA trademark and website in perpetuity, in writing
> from the IETF.

As nearly as I can tell, neither of those desires (which I've not
heard expressed, FWIW) are things the IETF could satisfy anyway.  As I
understand it, there is a trademark in "IANA" held by ICANN
And ICANN is also the registrant and admin contact of iana.org (a
simple whois query will reveal as much).  So, the IETF (and for that
matter the IAB) has no existing claim on either of those bits of
"intellectual property", unless one is asserting that there is some
such claim outside the existing contractual arrangements or legal

It is my personal (I emphasise personal) opinion that nothing in the
current discussion should disturb existing facts unless that
disturbance could be different without the NTIA's involvement in the
arrangements.  In the case of the things under discussion, NTIA
disappearing would not alter the control, and therefore I'm not sure
what you want.  Anyway, ICANN doesn't need IETF's opinion in this
case: they own the trademark and hold the domain registration.

IANAL.  And this is my personal opinion, and not one of a member of
any body I can name.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

Iana-transition mailing list
Iana-transition at arin.net

More information about the Iana-transition mailing list