At 07:18 PM 7/3/99 , Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
>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
Hi Jonathan,
It's not a question whether I think it was
wise or unwise to have designated ICANN as
"newco." It's more a question of whether
the process by which ICANN became designated
was legitimate or not.
It's now apparent that it wasn't.
Jay.
>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]
>> >
>
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.� 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
