At 09:10 PM 4/23/98 +0800, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote:
>- it is said, that IANA is just an Uncle Sam's contract to the
This is now the position of the US government, particularly the White
House. They have enough power to make this assertion of authority
something that cannot be ignored.
>- according to IANA's IAHC's gTLD-MoU <http://www.gtld-mou.org>,
> IANA is in charge in maintaining the root, assuming that there
This has been the reality of the DNS since its inception. The real
authority of IANA stems from the operators of the DNS root and, even more
importantly, from the many DNS client resolvers around the world. (It has
NOT stemmed from its source of funds, the US government.)
The most important set of these resolvers are the Internet service
providers around the world, since most users point their own software at
the server run by the ISP. The IANA root is chosen by 99.5% of the ISPs.
This is strictly voluntary. If the US government makes the wrong choices,
it would be entirely possible for another group (imagine if ASEAN and EU
got together on this) to set up an alternative root that was not dominated
by the US government.)
>- according to RFC1601 <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1601.txt>,
> somehow, IETF's IAB is in charge to look after IANA, whereas
> the holy ISOC is on the top of everything.
For many of us, the IETF, the IAB, the IESG, and a number of other
organizations would also rate the "holy" label and possibly would rate it
long before giving it to ISOC. IN fact, given the religious fervor which
so easily arises on the net, it's not clear that the term "holy" works well
to distinguish one group or position from another...
But more seriously, when a chart of organizational relationships is drawn,
yes ISOC is usually drawn on top. My own version of the chart has IAB and
ISOC to the side of the IETF, since the real-world, daily operation of the
IETF is independent of IAB and ISOC, except in 3 cases. One is the writing
of formal IETF procedures, in which case the ISOC board must approve them.
The second is in selecting "managers" for the IETF, that is, area directors
who are part of the IESG (IETF Steering Group).
A special "nominating committee" does the selecting. The chair of the
nomcom is chosen by the board of ISOC, although the other members of nomcom
are chosen by random selection from a pool of volunteers.) The nominees
for the IESG must be approved by the IAB. The nomcom also nominates people
to be on the IAB. These nominations must be approved by the ISOC board.
And lastly, when there is a challenge to a decision by the IESG, an appeals
sequences goes to the IAB. If their ruling is not satisfactory, a recent
change in IETF procedures permits taking the matter up with ISOC. This
option has never been exercised.
In any event, this says that ISOC is quite important with respect to some
strategic IETF activities, but is not part of its daily activity.
>- why does the Internet DNS Names Review Board (IDNB) -- a
> committee that supposed to be established by the IANA -- not
> exist ?
Until quite recently, the DNS has functioned nicely and without very much
politics or conflict. As with all other Internet technology and service,
use over time teaches us about changes that need to be made. That is the
reason we are now seeking to enhance the operation of IANA, the IP address
assignment structure and the domain name assignment structure.
d/
__________________________________________________________________________
Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253
dcrocker@brandenburg.com 675 Spruce Drive (f) +1 408 273 6464
www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:28 PST