>Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:34:00 -0800
>To: jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: fyi - an exchange of mail with ICANN
>Cc: Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>At 02:30 PM 2/26/99 +0000, Jeff Williams wrote:
>>My only question here is, do you have some
>>disagreement with what Esther responded to you with? If so, please
>>clarify. It looked pretty good to me, though I don't necessarily agree
>>with here assumptions.
>
>It looked pretty good to us as well. We have also spoken with the US
>Department of Commerce (Becky Burr), who agrees that Esther's response
>represents a pretty good reality.
>
>The important points, from my perspective, are three:
>
>First, the people that are doing the IANA TLD and IP Address Block
>assignment functions are the same people that are staffing the RFC Editor's
>office, and the same people that assign protocol numbers. The RFC Editor's
>office was a separate DARPA contract at one time, and is now defined by a
>contact between ISOC and ISI, paid for in part by ISOC Membership revenues
>and corporate contributions. We have a long track record with these people,
>have for the most part had excellent results, and therefore trust them. It
>helps to have the protocol assignment and RFC Editor's office closely
>aligned in this way, as it simplifies the communication paths and provides
>a greater probability that the right things will happen. We want to
>continue using these people. If they happen to be paid by ICANN, so be it.
>
>Second, the protocol number assignment is now and has since the inception
>of the IETF been an IETF function. It is not the place of the US Government
>or any other body to assign or contract the services apart from our approval.
>
>Third, the very last thing we want to happen is for someone to need a TCP
>Option number and find themselves needing to send delegates to meetings in
>far-away places where people argue vehemently about corporate relationships
>and the assignment of IP address blocks and naming structures. If the only
>way to keep those two sets of issues separate, we need to preserve the
>capability to have someone else do the protocol number assignment job.
>
>As far as I know, everyone involved is in violent agreement on these points.
>
>As I understand it, the reason this showed up in the way it did is that the
>IANA contract is being reassigned from ISI to ICANN, and the contract
>holder didn't want to edit it when they did so.
>
>
--
"How gratifying for once to know... that those up above
will serve those down below" - S. Todd
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's all just marketing" +1 (613) 473-1719
Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0
