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

Travis Biehn tbiehn at gmail.com
Sun Oct 19 12:55:46 EDT 2014

I concur with the sentiment. Eliminate the tithe to ICANN if possible.
Transition functionality as close to RIRs as possible. This further
decentralizes the RIRs and discourages one jurisdictional entity from
having yet another central squeeze point.

As far as 'incorporation' of another legal entity, I don't see where that
is necessary when all participating RIRs can simply contract with one
another. Of course this would simply duplicate the
jurisdictional/administrative chokepoint and reintroduce overhead into the
process. Could you see all the RIRs agreeing on what country to incorporate
the NRO in?

Of course this silliness may be too experimental for the ICG or various
proposal middlemen...

Increasingly it looks like the sentiment is to retain the status quo, which
'by design' seems to be the easiest path.

On Oct 19, 2014 7:23 AM, "David Huberman" <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>

> Andrew,
> 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
> (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:omznph.2.11).
> 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
> registrations.
> 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,
> A
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141019/0a5cd46c/attachment.html>

More information about the Iana-transition mailing list