Re: [ga] DOC Notice of Intent for contracting the IANA function

[Martin Hannigan <hannigan@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:06 AM 5/22/2006, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > At 08:24 PM 5/21/2006, Danny Younger wrote:
> > > http://www.fedbizopps.gov/spg/DOC/OS/OAM/DOCNTIA%2D0001/SynopsisP.html
>
> > Can someone here who actually understands the process the 
> > government is using explain to me exactly what this means as 
> > related to the IANA function? From
> > my experience, a lot of these activities are standard government operations
> > and housekeeping from my past experience and usually mean little.
>
> Well, I'm no expert on the rules of Federal procurement, but what 
> this means is that NTIA has decided that nobody else but ICANN can 
> do "the IANA function" and that anybody who wants to say otherwise 
> has a couple of weeks to put together a completely formed, 
> comprehensive proposal to replace ICANN in the performance of that job.
>
> One of the substantial hurdles to this is that the job is extremely 
> non-defined.  Yes, there are phrases that hint at some of the 
> duties, but the exact deliverables, performance standards, 
> relationships with third parties, government provided rights and 
> facilities, etc etc are all not described.  That makes it impossible 
> for anyone else to make a bid.
>
> Moreover, the linkage of this procurement to other relationships 
> between the USG and ICANN are not described, nor is there any 
> statement anywehre about the fate of the L root server.  (I asked 
> NTIA about this when they put out their RFI and they said that the L 
> root was *not* included, but it is not clear to me that that RFI and 
> this sole-source procurement have a legally recognizable relationship.)
>
> And there are substantial questions that are not addressed due to 
> the vague nature of the procurement.  For example, can the IANA 
> operator charge money to third parties, such as the IETF or the RIRs 
> for the performance of tasks under this agreement?  Considering that 
> the RIRs charge money for the sub-allocations they make from the 
> IANA delegation to the RIRs, it only makes sense for IANA to be able 
> to charge money as well.
>
> Overall, its part of the continuing hubris of NTIA and the US DoC.
>
> What is really sad is that one of the NTIA architects of that hubris 
> was named to fill the male seat for north america on the UN/IGF Advisory group.


Thanks. As far as L-ROOT goes, I have been under the impression that
the jurisdiction of the root server system is only the root-zone file.
I can't find anyhing to the contrary.



For instance, if I am "large Tier1 network" I can setup a through m on
my network for security and performance reasons if I choose, or, I could
even offer to operate a root server on someone elses network and as long
as I don't announce those routes as globally authoritative, no export, I
can pretty much do as I please?


I think an example of this is the recent decision by ISI to "sub-let"?
the operation of B-ROOT to PCH who also operates I-ROOT.

-M<





--
Martin Hannigan                                (c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation                            (w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff                      Network Operations
                                               hannigan@xxxxxxxxxxx