Re: Future of IANA (and IETF)

[Karl Denninger <karl at mcs.net>]

On Tue, Feb 03, 1998 at 01:01:21PM -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 1998 at 06:32:47PM +0000, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> > 
> > ! From: Kent Crispin <kent at songbird.com>
> > ! Jim's proposal to split the functions of IANA makes a lot of sense.
> > ! The solution is to make the root zone authority a non-profit, and
> > ! to further require that all TLD registries(*) be run on a cost recovery
> > ! basis.
> > !
> > There appears to be consensus on an explicit "cost recovery" basis for
> > this as well.  Would Kent please write a draft charter for this new
> > organization, that can be discussed with the IAB?  Concrete proposals
> > are usually easier to understand.
> 
> I actually did a draft with a very similar theme some months ago for
> the IAHC -- I could dust it off and refurbish it. 
> 
> I would like to point out that the fundamental authority for such an
> entity comes straight out of rfc1591.  The method of delegation of
> authority to subdomains described in 1591 grants monopoly control to
> the owner of a zone -- that *includes setting policy for any
> subdomains of a zone*.  That is, the "owner" of songbird.com (me) has
> absolute control over the policy I apply to subdomains of
> songbird.com.  Thus, by extension, the owner of the root zone has
> authority to set required policy for subdomains of the root, and thus
> can certainly set (and enforce, under penalty of removal from the
> root) a policy that TLD registries must be run on a cost-recovery
> basis, just as the root zone is.  Past that, subdomains of TLDs can
> follow whatever policy the TLD registry sets. 
> 
> -- 
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
> kent at songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
> PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
> http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

And, of course, since the US Government historically has funded the
primary root server and the IANA functionality which support(ed) it, that
means that the US Government gets to set those rules, right?

All according to your own interpretation - not mine.

Be careful what you cite as "support" for your position.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/          | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost