Fred Baker wrote:
> 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.
Yes it does represent the current reality, for better or worse. However
this current reality is one of the considered problems that is being
discussed and debated and the reason in part, for the perceived need to
replace the current structure an roles of the IANA and other traditional
Internet organizations. Now in saying this, I am aware the you Fred,
will likely disagree that any revamping is necessary or should even be
considered. But being in the position that you are in this is of course
understandable.
>
>
> 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.
You indeed may trust the current practice, however as it has been pointed
out by many and many times it is NOT trusted by a vast majority of the
current stakeholders and in essence possibly in need of critical review and
potential adjustment.
> 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.
Agreed. However this is a two edged sword as well as many have pointed out
over the past two or three years.
>
>
> 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.
As the USG does have this authority, I respectfully disagree.
>
>
> 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.
Well this is indeed a good point. However as again has been pointed our
many time in the past the IETF has made many arbitrary decisions in these
areas that many view and anti-competitive. Hence as the internet has
now "Grown Up", it is obvious that such arrangements need subsequent
adjustments and serious review.
>
>
> As far as I know, everyone involved is in violent agreement on these points.
You must have a very narrow field of view.
>
>
> 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.
True. This has sense been corrected and resubmitted. We will of course
be considering filing yet another protest and alternative proposal. It
may be of interest that the ICANN is a bit tight on funds, as I understand
is ISI as well. We however, are not suffering under that constraint.
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
