As much as it pains me to disagree with our esteemed colleague, he has
underestimated the force and effect of this Rule, by too narrow an
interpretation of the scope.
The Rule was promulgated under 47 USC 904(c)(1), which applies to the
ENTIRE CHAPTER, not a specific section. The chapter includes
enforcement provisions.
The Rule explicitly cites authority under 47 USC 902(b)(2)(H), "...
policies and standards ... including (but not limited to) considerations
of interoperability, privacy, security, spectrum use, and emergency
readiness."
That includes DNS, DNSSec, IPSec, and even Open-PGP.
The Rule also cites 47 USC 902(b)(2)(I), "The authority to develop and
set forth telecommunications policies pertaining to the Nation's
economic and technological advancement and to the regulation of the
telecommunications industry."
Note well, IAB: develop, not just assign. The wording of item #4 was
not an accident.
Note also, IETF: policies _and_ regulation.
The Rule explicitly places the new corporate entity above the IAB
(now relegated to a minor consulting role) and the IETF, and
considerably expands its powers outside the current IANA scope. This
is not a "new IANA" folks, this is much more!
This Rule creates an entity that will serve as a policy advisory
committee, "as appropriate to carry out the most effective performance
of [NTIA] functions." 47 USC 904(b). It meets all the requirements,
including the 2 year renewable sunset required by section 14 of Public
Law 92-463, now an Appendix to Title 5 (5 USC).
Policies are enforcable. Indeed, other agencies are required to provide
"information, support, and assistance, ... as [NTIA] may require in the
performance of its functions." 47 USC 904(c)(2). Such "other agencies"
include the CIA, the FBI, the IRS, the NSA, etc.
As an example, this language is the same used to seize "pirate radio"
equipment.
I recommend moving IANA out of the US as quickly as possible.
We need to take nominations for its location. Finland? New Zealand?
The CORE equipment was already stolen last week, very professionally, at
the instant the security person called in "sick".
We need to disperse the CORE database, and get it operational.
> From: Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
> As mere policy, the plan can not cause any contractual relationships to be
> formed with NSI, nor to assign property, nor anything else.
>
> There is no statutory authority stated in the Fed Reg notice that enables
> NTIA doing anything with NSI.
>
> If that is tried, you will see other people, such as those who brought the
> action against the 30% fund, come out of the wordwork to challange the
> award. And the challangers will almost certainly win.
>
WSimpson@UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:25 PST