Jay,
I think we may be writing each other synchronously. In any event, I
thought my note below makes it clear that ICANN has not yet inherited the
IANA root--I said, with parenthetical:
>it's got a mandate
>to (eventually, if all proceeds a particular way) maintain and manage the
>contents of the legacy IANA root
But the idea is for ICANN to eventually do so, if the gov't deems it ready
(in all sorts of ways) to do so. I get this from the white paper, which
you've said represents community consensus. The white paper says:
>Purpose. The new corporation ultimately should have the authority to
manage and perform a specific set of
> functions related to coordination of the domain name system, including
the authority necessary to:
> ...
> 2) oversee operation of the authoritative Internet root server system;
and it says:
>a new not-for-profit organization must be established by the private
sector and its Interim Board chosen.
> Agreement must be reached between the U.S. Government and the new
corporation relating to transfer of
> the functions currently performed by IANA
> ...
>A relationship between the U.S. Government and the new corporation must
be developed to transition DNS
> management to the private sector and to transfer management functions.
That's what I understand to be in progress today. You may think the gov't
unwise to have designated ICANN "newco" and to be in the process of
transitioning IANA's functions to it--but that doesn't mean the gov't isn't
in the process of giving it just that mandate. ...JZ
At 06:49 PM 7/3/99 , you wrote:
>Sorry again, Jonathan,
>
>This question presumes that ICANN has inherited
>the IANA root. I most strongly object to such
>a conclusion.
>
>To repeat, ICANN does NOT have any *legitimate*
>claim to manage the old IANA root.
>
>The last authoritative, community-based consensus
>on that question was the White Paper, which ICANN
>has ignored since its inception. (overly kind as
>this may be :-)
>
>Jay.
>
>
>At 06:39 PM 7/3/99 , Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
> >Esther, Mike, Joe,
> >
> >Is there any particular ICANN view on efforts to set up alternative root
> >systems? I'd figured that ICANN would be neutral on it--it's got a mandate
> >to (eventually, if all proceeds a particular way) maintain and manage the
> >contents of the legacy IANA root, without regard to whatever other systems
> >may be in development. Others worry that ICANN would view alternative
> >roots as hostile challenges to its authority.
> >
> >If there's no ICANN policy on it, do you have views on it in your
> >respective capacities? Thanks! ...Jonathan
> >
> >At 05:39 PM 7/3/99 , Richard Sexton wrote:
> >>At 05:07 PM 7/3/99 -0400, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
> >> >purely neutral with respect to it: "We just manage the old IANA root; set
> >> >up your own if you like and God bless!" ...JZ
> >>
> >>You're closer to them than we are Jonothon, why don't you ask them.
> >>
> >>Frankly I expect rhetoric out of them: "renegade", "pirate",
> >>"anarchist" and so on and so forth.
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern
> ourselves."
> >
> >
> >Jon Zittrain
> >Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law
> School
> >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
