Subject: RE: [Enum] Re: draft-ietf-enum-e164-dns-02.txt: IANA Consideratio ns

From: "Shaw, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:08:25 +0200

> That IANA is to register that domain in the ARPA zone. It is up to 
> IANA to come up with exactly how that is done. My personal guess is 
> that IANA will delegate e164.arpa to ITU and let ITU take care of the 
> subdelegation. IANA is though not part of the IETF and we can not 
> tell IANA to do something more specific than this.
>
> So, there is MUCH more thinking behind the text already than just 
> words from my head. I am happy to answer more questions about it, but 
> I would not think it will change much, due to the consensus which 
> exists in IAB etc about the text. ITU is also informed, as is DoC and 
> ICANN, and everyone belive this is the path that should be taken.
> 

To be clear, I think a more accurate statement is that the ITU 
related groups will be having now some additional discussion and 
probably need clarification on this issue before we have a specific 
consensus "belief" (although we've certainly noted the IAB view). 

This is the second time I've heard in the last couple of weeks that 
IANA (mmmm...ICANN) could "delegate" e164.arpa to the ITU for 
subdelegation redelegation and we certainly already recognized that 
this is one possible (and perhaps even reasonable) scenario but we 
need to reserve judgment until we've had a little more time 
to discuss in the relevant task force here. In other words, we're 
going to look at other scenarios including other trees...

One fly in the ointment is the reality that ICANN/IANA are 
basically under the patronage of US DoC for what looks like
many years to come so that introduces a certain nervousness over
a tree rooted in .arpa. If the ICANN thing folds (certainly in 
the realm of possibility), it looks to me that IANA currently 
folds with it. 
 
Not wanting to impede anything but when I hear "yes, we 
consulted with one ITU member state's government agency" for 
management of this international address space, I've got to 
admit that my absurdity alarm goes off (even if admire the 
relevant staff of DoC...).. 

And even if you look at this purely on a US domestic level, am I 
the only one who sees that if the one US agency responsible for 
regulatory numbering issues is not the same agency that is involved 
in DNS, doesn't that make you wonder whether we're already 
on shaky ground? (and in for considerable process evolution?)

yes, I know some of you think that's a feature and not a bug...

Bob
--
Robert Shaw <[email-masked]>
ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor
International Telecommunication Union <http://www.itu.int>
Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:24:16 -0400

Hi Bob,

>consensus "belief" (although we've certainly noted the IAB view).

Do you have any pointers to the relevant groups and
timing?

>admit that my absurdity alarm goes off (even if admire the

I'm not aware that Carl Malamud and Marshall T Rose
consulted with the ITU or set off absurdity alarms
when TPC.INT was implemented.  What's different here?

best,
tony

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:34:57 -0700

Tony,

At INET, last week, a speaker from SAIC said you were no longer associated 
with NSI.

Where have you landed?

d/

---

From: "A.M.Rutkowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 05:03:59 -1000

Hi Dave,

>At INET, last week, a speaker from SAIC said you were no longer associated 

You must have misunderstood.  He was no doubt
saying that NSI is no longer associated with
SAIC.  It's now owned by VeriSign, and we all
report to Stratton Sclavos.  There are significant
synergies between "VeriSign West" and VeriSign East"
which we expect to manifest in the ENUM arena.

best regards,
tony
V.P. for Internet Strategy
VeriSign-NSI

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:11:50 -0700

At 11:08 PM 7/23/00 +0200, Shaw, Robert wrote:
>One fly in the ointment is the reality that ICANN/IANA are basically under 
>the patronage of US DoC for what looks like many years to come so that 
>introduces a certain nervousness over a tree rooted in .arpa. If the ICANN 
>thing folds (certainly in  the realm of possibility), it looks to me that 
>IANA currently folds with it.

Bob,

Let's back up a moment and take a look at these points.  On the surface, 
they are both factually correct and obviously and seriously valid.  However 
as you know -- more than most -- the REAL reality is a tad more complicated 
and interesting.  (Almost makes one wish for the relative simplicity and 
comfort of the IAHC days...)

1.  The Internet is already thoroughly dependent upon .arpa and IANA 
administration of it.  Without in-addr.arpa, the net would stop.

2.  As political, messy, noisy, etc. as the ICANN/IANA current situation 
is, in reality it represents a stable administration that has been in 
operation for 15 years.

3.  In spite of some efforts to try to characterize the recent ICANN 
meeting in Yokohama as controversial or lacking consensus, what was obvious 
to anyone attending was just the opposite.  As such, concern over ICANN's 
future is pretty clearly misplaced.

4.  Although some have forcefully stated that the US government has 
ultimate authority over ICANN, the IANA activity always has -- and 
continues to be -- valid only due to broad consensus by the Internet 
operations community.

5.  To whatever extent there IS reality to the claim that the US government 
has ultimate authority over ICANN, it has ALWAYS been true, so the 
allocation of e164.arpa to IANA does not create any  new issues about 
Internet authority.

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

---

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 09:28:36 -0400 (EDT)

Regarding Dave Crocker's five points:

I do not think there is a consensus on points 3 & 4; you will hear a lot
of people on both sides.  I certainly to do not subscribe to them
personally. I wasn't in Japan, but the Yokohama meeting I heard about had
serious divisions; that said it the odds of ICANN collapsing in the short
run seem small -- although bigger than they did six months ago. The first
half of point 5 is certainly true; I don't know if the second half
necessarily follows.

Point 2 is not quite correct.  There was a very substantial break about
two years ago when ICANN took over IANA from USC.  There has been
continuity of personnel, but the management now is Mike Roberts (& Co.)
instead of Jon Postel.  ICANN claims the authority to tell IANA what to
do, although it has entered into an agreement with the IETF not to use
(much of) that authority.  Not quite the same thing.

> >the patronage of US DoC for what looks like many years to come so that 

This is clearly correct; see the recent GAO report.

> >IANA currently folds with it.

Legally, quite correct.  Having said that, and I suspect in partial
agreement with Dave Crocker, I do think that the simple collapse of IANA
is somewhat unlikely; more likely if ICANN were to collapse, the
government would find a new contractor to take over the "IANA function".

> comfort of the IAHC days...)

:>

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:15:06 -0400

>run seem small -- although bigger than they did six months ago. The first

That sweeping assessment, absent detailed listing of its basis, translates 
into a statement more of personal hope than meaningful analysis.

>half of point 5 is certainly true; I don't know if the second half

My wording was not as careful as it should have been.

I meant that no new issues in IANA and DNS administration are raised.

To the extent that anyone does know if that assessment is true -- and they 
wish to claim that it is not -- they need to provide details which 
substantiate additional concern, besides the lack of their knowing the 
truth of the assessment.

>two years ago when ICANN took over IANA from USC.  There has been

And here my wording was careful.

In fact the administration has been continuous and stable.

The policy-level work has recently been erratic.  Different area of concern.

For those aware of the 15-year history, it is worth noting that the 
policy-level work has ALWAYS been erratic...

>(much of) that authority.  Not quite the same thing.

In fact, there IS an agreement with the IETF, but it is only with respect 
to those on-going administrative issues over which the IETF has authority.

My suspicion is that the intended reference, here, was to issues that have 
essentially never been an IETF matter.  My other suspicion is that the 
agreement to exclude/limit has not happened, so it would be
more than slightly helpful to see a reference to documentation that 
substantiates the claimed agreement.

d/

=-=-=-=-=