Re: [ga] NTIA "Request for Information" on the IANA Functions

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Danny Younger wrote:

> re:  "Good or bad, ICANN is the only US acceptable
> solution for the IANA"

One question that I have not seen asked is this:

Why should the US be paying, or even contracting for, what are largely 
clerical services in support of the IETF?

The IETF is but one of several bodies that create standards upon which the 
internet operates.  If we count noses we will find more packets bearing 
IEEE defined headers than IETF ones.  And there's the W3C and even the 
ITU (we are still using many pieces of the old OSI work.)

Yet all of these other bodies pay for their own secretarial services.

Either *all* of these should get the same government endowed benefits as 
received by the IETF or *none* of them should.

ccTLD delegation should not be blended into the protocol parameter job.

ccTLD delegation is an issue separate and apart from protocol parameters 
and needs to be housed in a very tiny, very constrained, tightly focused, 
and politically insulated body that does only that job and nothing else.

		--karl--