Re: FW: [registrars] the iana function

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Bruce,

The IANA function does not cover the addition or removal of gTLDs only
ccTLDs see section 12.3 of the contract under CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS
in http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-09feb00.htm

The functions enumerated in 12.3 have nothing to do with services
registrars have any business interst in -- though we continue to be a
large source of funding for such services.

best,

-rick


On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Bruce Tonkin wrote:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:35 PM
> To: 'Rick Wesson'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] the iana function
>
>
> Hello Rick,
>
> I disagree.
>
> We don't need further instability at this stage - quite the opposite.
>
> The IANA function is not clearly separated from policy at this stage for me to be comfortable with some sort of open contract.  e.g I would assume that Verisign could put in a good bid for managing the actual daily changes to the zonefile, oh by the way lets add in a few features for IDN etc (nothing for you to worry about).
>
> One of the activities of ICANN and the cctlds is to work on clearly defining the procedures for making updates to the cctlds entries in the zonefile.  This is work still in progress.
> It is more complicated than you might think - as many of the operators of ccltds have no association with the government or country associated with the tld, and it is often not clear who has the authority to make changes if the anything happens to the person listed in the WHOIS.
> I expect this will evolve in the next few months, and will sort out the difficulties in that area.
>
> I support the DoC decision to keep it where it is for another 3 years.
>
> During that 3 years, ICANN needs to work collaboratively with gtlds and cctlds to clearly define the procedures and operations of the "IANA" function.  Then ,and only then, would it be appropriate to outsource this to an outside body.
>
> Most pushing for the IANA function to be moved are doing so for political reasons - not technical or cost related.
>
> There is certainly room for improvement in managing the IANA function.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:35 PM
> > To: Registrars List
> > Subject: [registrars] the iana function
> >
> >
> >
> > Registrars:
> >
> > The DoC has put out a zero-dollar procurement contract for
> > the IANA [1]
> > function. There are a number of parties calling on the DoC to
> > put the IANA
> > function out to bid. DoC considers ICANN best to run the IANA [2]
> >
> > As registrars fund a majority of the ICANN budget and the
> > IANA function is
> > paid for though ICANN funding, the registrars are effectively
> > funding the
> > IANA function.
> >
> > Registrars do not benefit from the IANA function as its mission is to
> > delegate protocol number assignments, IP blocks to the RIRs and
> > administer ccTLD delegations.
> >
> > I cannot come up with a figure for IANA expenses for 2002 as
> > the are all
> > lumped into ICANN expenses as far as personnel, travel, etc.
> > I do expect
> > that they are not insignificant.
> >
> > I propose that the registrars encourage the DoC to put the
> > IANA function
> > out to bid so that ICANN is more capable to focus on domain
> > name issues.
> >
> > there are capable parties available to bid on the IANA function and
> > removing the function from ICANN will reduce the amount
> > registrars have to
> > subsidize a function that bares little on this industry.
> > Remember if the
> > IANA goes away it will just leave registries and registrars to fund an
> > organization with the sole objective of domain names.
> >
> > please consider these points for discussion and if the constituency so
> > chooses I will draft a resolution for consideration at a later date.
> >
> >
> >
> > best,
> >
> > -rick
> >
> > [1] http://www.ietf.org//mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg18926.html
> > [2] http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-09feb00.htm
> >
> >
> >
>