Re: FW: [registrars] the iana function

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

I also believe much of Elliots logic is right on target here...

Ken Stubbs



----- Original Message -----
From: "Elliot Noss" <enoss@tucows.com>
To: "Rick Wesson" <wessorh@ar.com>; "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
Cc: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: FW: [registrars] the iana function


> I get to the same place as Bruce here although I take a slightly different
> road.
>
> For me peace with the ccs and rirs is the most critical task at hand for
> ICANN. There will be a new CEO shortly whose first orders of business will
> be (I desperately hope) to accomplish those two things. It is my view that
> looking for a change in the IANA function right now would significantly
> complicate this dynamic to a point that it could throw the whole issue
into
> disarray.
>
> There are a huge number of moving parts right now. We do not need to add
> another one, especially one as central as this.
>
> Another important point worth noting is that for most every registrar
above
> a de minimus level of business ccTLDs are an important revenue stream.
This
> is especially true for registrars outside the US. The fact that the RC
lives
> inside the GNSO in the current reform is understandable, but is not
absolute
> in its construction. I would be surprised if, in a year from now, the
> genesis of a registrar involvement in the CCSO did not come from this
> constituency.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> Regards
>
> Elliot Noss
> Tucows inc.
> 416-538-5494
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Rick Wesson
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:05 AM
> > To: Michael D. Palage
> > Cc: Bruce Tonkin; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: FW: [registrars] the iana function
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > you point out the confusion we have here, the IANA is specificly
prevented
> > (by contract) from adding to or removing from the root zone, see section
> > 12.3 of the contract at
> > http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-09feb00.htm
> >
> > Over the years the ICANN/IANA have choosen the most appropiate "hat" to
> > use when developing policy. These confusions would be eliminated by
> > allowing the IANA to move to another contractor.
> >
> > If you could just read the following from 12.3 section...
> >
> > - Administrative functions associated with root management. This
function
> >   involves facilitation and coordination of the root zone of the domain
> >   name system...
> >
> >   This function, however, does not include authorizing modifications,
> >   additions, or deletions to the root zone file or associated
information
> >   that constitute delegation or redelegation of top-level domains. The
> >   purchase order award will not alter root system responsibilities
defined
> >   in Amendment 11 of the Cooperative Agreement.
> >
> > Furthermore in 12.5 PERFORMANCE EXCLUSIONS,
> >
> >   ...This purchase order, in itself, does not authorize the contractor
to
> >   make substantive changes in established policy associated with the
> >   performance of the IANA functions. Procedures for policy development
> >   will remain the subject of a Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between DOC
> >   and ICANN.
> >
> > I just dont understand why folks think the ICANN would evaporate without
> > IANA, or how registrar interestes would be minimized without an IANA in
> > ICANN.
> >
> > -rick
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> >
> > > Rick,
> > >
> > > I think I would have to respectfully disagree with your
> > assessment that IANA
> > > does not involve additional or removal of gTLDs into the root. Would
you
> > > care to explain the following reports with regard to the
> > following gTLDs?
> > >
> > > IANA Report on Establishment of the .biz and .info Top-Level Domains
(25
> > > June 2001)
> > > http://www.iana.org/reports/biz-info-report-25jun01.htm
> > > IANA Report on Establishment of the .name Top-Level Domain (16
> > August 2001)
> > > http://www.iana.org/reports/name-report-16aug01.htm
> > > IANA Report on Establishment of the .museum Top-Level Domain (30
October
> > > 2001)
> > > http://www.iana.org/reports/museum-report-30oct01.htm
> > > IANA Report on Establishment of the .coop Top-Level Domain (13
December
> > > 2001)
> > > http://www.iana.org/reports/coop-report-13dec01.htm
> > > IANA Report on Establishment of the .aero Top-Level Domain (19
December
> > > 2001)
> > > http://www.iana.org/reports/aero-report-19dec01.htm
> > > IANA Report on Establishment of the .pro Top-Level Domain (6 May 2002)
> > > http://www.iana.org/reports/pro-report-06may02.htm
> > > IANA Report on Redelegation of the .org Top-Level Domain (9
> > December 2002)
> > > http://www.iana.org/reports/org-report-09dec02.htm
> > >
> > > I believe that the above referenced functions have a direct
> > relationship to
> > > registrar business interests.
> > >
> > > Another question I was hoping that you could answer. As one of the few
> > > registrars within the constituency NOT to sign the letter to
> > DoC supporting
> > > ICANN reform (despite various requests from me personally), why
> > do you so
> > > strongly believe that the DoC should take action here.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > > Behalf Of Rick Wesson
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:36 AM
> > > > To: Bruce Tonkin
> > > > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > > > Subject: Re: FW: [registrars] the iana function
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>