Hello:
1. Does IANA have right to remain silence?
The PAB should formally ask the POC regarding this issue.
2. Does the whole <I* family> have right to do nothing because
"it is not an engineering problem"? That is OK, however, they
should surrender their exclusive privileges.
3. IMHO, it is worth -- for the one who have not -- to reread:
- gTLD-MoU <http://www.gtld-mou.org/gTLD-MoU.html>: it is just
yet another BCP. Surprisingly, it is not easy to find this page
at <http://www.gtld-mou.org>. Moreover, why it is not RFC-ed
as a BCP?
- RFC-1591 <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt>, a classic
that is almost forgotten to be fully implemented.
- RFC-2050 <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2050.txt>, that
nobody cares, as it is said that the IESG has failed to find
anyone "too smart to say `yes'".
- Other classics like:
RFC-1601 <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1601.txt>
RFC-2026 <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2026.txt>,
RFC-2282 <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2282.txt>
RFC-2028 <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2028.txt>
RFC-1871 <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1871.txt>
<soapbox>
I pledge allegiance to the gTLD-MoU and to the names-servers
for which it stands, one root server, IANA-ble, with PABs
and justice for all.
</soapbox>
regards,
-- Rahmat M.Samik-Ibrahim-VLSM-TJT http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6825 - 501(C)laude Levi-Strauss' Non-Profit Structuralism Jeans(m/tic) ------- > Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:32:20 -0700 > From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> > > 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
-- Rahmat M.Samik-Ibrahim-VLSM-TJT http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6825 - 501(C)laude Levi-Strauss' Non-Profit Structuralism Jeans(m/tic) -
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:29 PST