RE: FW: [registrars] the iana function

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

I echo Paul's, Elliot's and others' comments here.  While ICANN's role in the IANA function of ccTLD redelegation has been frustrating in some cases, overall ICANN's management has been stable.  ICANN has helped to ensure that the interests of the Internet communities of the ccTLD countries in question have been taken into account.  

Moreover, we, as registrars, are supported by a stable policy and contractual environment.  I would not like to see ICANN undermined, particularly at this pivotal transition stage, and I believe that at least some of the letters going to DOC on the IANA topic are trojan horses for simply undermining ICANN.  (In fact, I'm wondering, Rick, whether you have any relationship to the IMS bid for the IANA function, given your involvement as CTO in their .org bid.  I ask only in the interest of full disclosure, given the sensitivity of this discussion.)

While the IANA issue is certainly important, I would urge registrars to focus on the key issues that immediately affect our businesses and our customers - Whois, transfers, RGP, and our own bylaws.  We and our NC reps have done good work trying to get improvements on this front.  Let's not lose sight of them by spreading ourselves too thinly.

Regards,  Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul M. Kane [mailto:Paul.Kane@REACTO.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:24 AM
To: Elliot Noss
Cc: wessorh@ar.com; Michael D. Palage; Bruce Tonkin; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: FW: [registrars] the iana function


Having the IANA a seperate element of ICANN _yet_ within the ICANN 
umbrella has significant advantages in terms stability of the ICANN. 
Taking IANA from ICANN could undermine ICANN significantly.

The primary issue needs to be that the IANA (technical) is managed 
expeditiously  wrt to the needs to the community that require IANA 
services.  If IANA is operated efficiently (name server updates, IP 
address allocation, protocol assignments etc) - many of the players in 
the industry would be happy.  The problems are created when 
administrative/technical functions are used as a lever to force other 
(unrelated) issues.

I urge the Registrars not to seek a break up of ICANN at this time.  Let 
the IANA contract be renewed for a further 6 months then review progress 
.... If ICANN does not listen and address the concerns as to how IANA 
should be run then there may be problems ahead.

The current talk of  ICANN fracture is not helpful - when many of us are 
working quite hard to keep Government regulators out of the internet and 
the private sector thriving.  The regulators are knocking at the door 
and there is much truth in the saying "united we stand, divided ........"

Best

Paul


Elliot Noss wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
> 
>