Re: [ga] IANA is a function performed by ICANN

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jefsey,
 
Maybe I got it wrong but I was under the impression that ICANN somehow subcontracted this portion of their mission to the specialist which make up IANA.  This of course would be consistant with the cited paper. I would love to see a reference work on what you say here regarding IANA being indepent.
 
Your three year theory seems like it came and went and since everyone continues on in the manner that it continues, it does. Only the USG can legitmately object since they are  the party to the contract.  Qui Tams and 3rd party beneficiary contracts look viable as a means of enforcement, but you would still be required to show a better way to obtain an equitable remedy.
 
I don't see an alternative or a contract that suggests what you hold as truths here, but I would love to.
 
Eric

"J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My understanding was that IANA is a neutral, independent, technical 
authority, everyone using the TCP/IP technology could trust, independently 
from any operational, political, national, commercial consideration which 
are the areas of ICANN, and of other bodies (such as GAC, MINC, ITU, ISOC, 
UN, etc.).

Also, that as the custodian of the references necessary to use the IETF IP, 
it was part of the IETF IPR protection system. I understand that it 
predated the creation of ICANN, of ISOC, of IETF and even (under the name 
of NIC) of the DNS.

I am therefore surprised and (IANAL) I am not sure about the implications 
of the following IANA definition, in a document ICANN is to publish on Monday :

"the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is a function performed by 
ICANN".
http://www.iana.org/procedures/delegation-data.html

ICANN's position within the intergovernance is under UN study, subject to 
possible political negotiations or intergovernmental agreements (cf. the 
ongoing WSIS Prepcom meeting in Hammamet). ICANN is only under contract for 
three years with the USG. RIRs only entered into an MoU with ICANN on the 
grounds that it may not be still here in two years. The majority of ccTLDs 
are not interested in joining ICANN's ccNSO. I do not understand how this 
fits with the necessity of a perpetual, stable, not controverted, 
consensually accepted, trusted technical standard parameters repository?

Or do I read the definition wrong?
jfc 


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.