The Empowerment of the new IANA....
Al Costanzo
I have looked at the web site read the FAQ and other select documentation
and still have this small, humble little question.
By what power or authority does IANA have to broaden its scope, control &
oversight [for the public good]?
To be recognized by us [the people] as that _POWER_ is just fine, we can
pretend we have the authority to do such and such a thing, until that power
is challenged by the government, industry or whomever.
I might add that I have faith that Jon is trying to present something that
is fair to everyone concerned.
Nonetheless, I do not see where in the draft it mentions that IANA has been
appointed by any governmental body to carryout the new mission statement
defined. Furthermore, if this is the case, will IANA be in fact be
recognized by the United States government (& internationally) as the
legitiment body who has the legal right to perform the tasks that are
outlined in draft three.
In summary, after reading your comments from Gordon Cook's message "Draft 3
or Genisis the new IANA or who is god?"... I know who the true God is -- who
created heaven and earth - but who gives IANA the authority
to carry out its functionality? IANA cannot give itself this authority. It
must come from an entity already empowered to give the authority to IANA
(certainly not the IETF or internet users in general or any other Internet
related body that I am aware of)
Forgive me, if this point has been addressed in the past, maybe someone can
point me to a reference showing me where IANAs authority comes from to carry
its new tasks out.
_AND_ finally if the reference exists -- it surely should IMHO be included
in the draft.
Regards to all.
-al
------------------------------
and remember, no matter where you go, there you are... and so is God!
Karl Auerbach
One should note that the IANA submission is but one of a number of
proposals which have been made and which are being discussed.
There are significant pros and significant cons for each proposal.
No proposal has received anything even close to a concensus nor even a
clear predominant position.
There are considerable interests at stake. Consider that your's may be
among them.
There are many groups working in the foreground and in the deep background
to promote their own special interests. Consider that it is possible that
your interests may not be given adequate protection.
I encourage everyone to learn the issues and to participate.
--karl--
Ole J. Jacobsen
consensus-based proposal." It might not be achieveable, but
that IS what he has asked for. The alternative would likely
cause yet more delay.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen | || || |
Editor and Publisher | || || |
The Internet Protocol Journal | |||| |||| |
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 | ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. |
e-mail: o...@cisco.com | C i s c o S y s t e m s |
Karl Auerbach
> And consider that Ira Magaziner has said: "I want to see ONE
> consensus-based proposal." It might not be achieveable, but
> that IS what he has asked for. The alternative would likely
> cause yet more delay.
Or if one simply changes the emphasis:
And consider that Ira Magaziner has said: "I want to see one
CONCENSUS-based proposal."
I would submit that concensus-based is far more important than one.
We clearly have no concensus on *any* of the various proposals.
--karl--
Roeland M.J. Meyer
Karl,
By definition, if you have more than one proposal, you have no consensus.
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993)
e-mail: <mailto:rme...@mhsc.com>rme...@mhsc.com
Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/
___________________________________________
SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!
Pete Farmer
6:01 AM:
>I have looked at the web site read the FAQ and other select
>documentation and still have this small, humble little question.
>
>By what power or authority does IANA have to broaden its
>scope, control & oversight [for the public good]?
Here's the short story on this:
1) The US Department of Commerce issued a "Green Paper" (draft) and
"White Paper" regarding domain name issues. Ira Magaziner was the
person responsible for writing/issuing those documents. The "White
Paper" is a "Statement of Policy" regarding regarding the "Management of
Internet Names and Addresses." Reference:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm .
2) The White Paper presents a history of the management of Internet
names and addresses, pointing out that the activities of IANA and
Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI - manager of the .com top-level domain)
were initiated through funding by DARPA and NSF, each operating under
the authority of Congress.
3) The White Paper states explicitly that the "U.S. Government is
prepared to recognize, by entering into agreement with, and to seek
international support for, a new, not-for-profit corporation formed by
private sector Internet stakeholders to administer policy for the
Internet name and address system."
4) In effect, the White Paper is saying that the US Government created
the the system for managing Internet names and addresses, so it
therefore claims the privilege of passing that authority/responsibility
to others, while recognizing that it should seek international support
before doing so.
5) The White Paper enumerated "principles" that must be met by any
organization proposing to take over name/address management.
6) The IANA draft is one of a small number of drafts that attempt to
meet those principles.
7) The IANA proposal, or any proposal, has force only if the US
Government accepts the proposal as meeting its requirements as set forth
in the White Paper.
I hope this answers your questions.
Pete
______________________________________________________________________
Peter J. Farmer mailto:pfa...@strategies-u.com
Strategies Unlimited Voice: +1 650 941 3438
201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 205 Fax: +1 650 941 5120
Mountain View, CA 94040 WWW: http://www.strategies-u.com
Karl Auerbach
> >I would submit that concensus-based is far more important than one.
> >
> >We clearly have no concensus on *any* of the various proposals.
>
> Karl,
> By definition, if you have more than one proposal, you have no consensus.
Then let me restate it: No single proposal has a even a clear majority
of support.
Again, I encourage people to study the issues, study the proposals,
learn the pros and cons, and make their views and preferences known, and
perhaps even make new proposals. The concrete has not even arrived on
site, much less been mixed, poured, or set.
--karl--
Al Costanzo
This more than answers the question. It also give IANA legal power.
In my opinion the empowerment should be included in the draft or the
articles of incorporation
stating these facts....
-Regards,
-Al
Pete Farmer
>This more than answers the question. It also give IANA legal power.
<grin> Or, at least, the appearance of legal power. Creative folks can
always come up with a way to contest authority, particularly when
there's money at stake. From time to time, for example, various people
have raised the question of whether the US Government has "clear title"
to the .com registry. The answer is at least a little bit muddy, as
some of the delegations of authority by the USG to other organizations
have not been as tightly documented as one might have hoped. This is
all quite understandable, given how quickly the Internet evolved from a
defense/research/educational thing to a commercial thing.
>In my opinion the empowerment should be included in the draft or the
>articles of incorporation stating these facts....
I believe that most involved in this discussion do feel strongly that
it's absolutely critical for the 'new entity' to have a sound
authoritative footing. However, for the IANA to write the empowerment
into their draft documents would, no doubt, appear to some as
outrageously presumptuous -- it's terribly easy to offend people in this
oh-so-tender process.
The final articles that formalize whatever emerges from this process
ought to make the authority of the 'new entity' authority clear for
future generations (i.e. for those coming 6 months after us -- ha).
Happy to have helped.
Dave Paulsen
> Forgive me, if this point has been addressed in the past, maybe someone
> can point me to a reference showing me where IANAs authority comes from to
> carry its new tasks out.
>
>From the reported proceedings of the Swiss meeting, I got the impression
that Ira Magaziner gave it to them.
It also seems to me that validity is the begging question here :-)
_dave_(seemingly obligatory and definitely resource wasting .sig)