Re: The formerly controversial sentence in the "Statement of Prin cipl es"

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roberto and all,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Marc, Jeff,
>
> Marc wrote:
>
> > Right.... so in your interpretation the USG has just rubberstamped the
> > gTLD-MOU?
> >
> > I don't think so....
> >
> Jeff wrote:
>
> >   So Roberto, you representation is both inaccurate and a poor attempt to
> > claim
> > some
> > sort of legitimacy for the "Statement of Principals".
> >
> My point is just that it is agreed by USG that IANA (or better the new
> corporation that will evolve from IANA) will be in control of the root.

  No, not as you state it here.  Rather that the "New-IANA" and the board of
directors,
taking suggestion and direction from advisory groups will be in MANAGING the
ROOT.  Not controlling it.

  Also if the current IANA "Controlled" the Root than how come the 7 gTLD's that

the gTLD-MoU recommended didn't get added some time ago?  Answer;  NSI
refused to add them.  As NSI operates the Root.  So the current IANA does not
"Control" the ROOT servers.

  To Wit.  From the White paper;
3) Operation of the root server system.


     The root server system is a set of thirteen file servers, which together
contain authoritative
     databases listing all TLDs. Currently, NSI operates the "A" root server,
which maintains the
     authoritative root database and replicates changes to the other root
servers on a daily basis.
     Different organizations, including NSI, operate the other 12 root
servers.(6) The U.S.
     Government plays a role in the operation of about half of the Internet's
root servers.
     Universal name consistency on the Internet cannot be guaranteed without a
set of
     authoritative and consistent roots. Without such consistency messages could
not be routed
     with any certainty to the intended addresses.

> I think that this is an important point: USG thinks that authority on the
> root has to be held not by some Governmental agency, but by a private
> corporation.

  Roberto, as was pointed out in the WP, the IANA is and has been funded by
the USG.  You need to improve your reading skills.

  To wit.  From the White Paper again;

DNS Management Today:


In recent years, commercial use of the Internet has expanded rapidly. As a
legacy, however, major components of the domain name system are still performed
by, or subject to, agreements with agencies of the U.S. Government.

3) Operation of the root server system.


     The root server system is a set of thirteen file servers, which together
contain authoritative
     databases listing all TLDs. Currently, NSI operates the "A" root server,
which maintains the
     authoritative root database and replicates changes to the other root
servers on a daily basis.
     Different organizations, including NSI, operate the other 12 root
servers.(6) The U.S.
     Government plays a role in the operation of about half of the Internet's
root servers.
     Universal name consistency on the Internet cannot be guaranteed without a
set of
     authoritative and consistent roots.

>
>
> Whether this will be called IANA, or NEW-IANA, or whatever else, is only
> important for useless polemics, but doesn't change the substance.

  As you can clearly see your statements here are very far off base, and not
well
grounded.  Oh yes the substance of what the "New IANA" will be composed of it
substantially different than the current IANA is today.  That the "New IANA"
will have much broader Board makeup.

  To Wit.  From the White Paper;

"IANA has functioned as a government contractor, albeit with considerable
latitude, for some time now. Moreover, IANA is not formally organized or
constituted. It describes a function more than an entity, and as such does not
currently provide a legal foundation for the new corporation. This is not to
say, however, that IANA could not be reconstituted by a broad-based,
representative group of Internet stakeholders or that individuals associated
with IANA should not themselves play important foundation roles in the formation
of the new corporation. We believe, and many commenters also suggested, that the
private sector organizers will want Dr. Postel and other IANA staff to be
involved in the creation of the new corporation."

  Notice that this does NOT say that the current IANA is to become the "New
IANA".

 And also to wit.  From the White Paper;

"5. Structure of the New Corporation. The Green Paper proposed a 15-member
Board,
consisting of three representatives of regional number registries, two members
designated by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), two members representing
domain name registries and domain name registrars, seven members representing
Internet users, and the Chief Executive Officer of the new corporation."


> Also, I didn't claim (in that message) neither "rubberstamping" of the
> gTLD-MoU by USG, nor legitimacy of the "Statement of Principles".
> But, because you rised the point first, I will answer you that I think that
> the legitimacy of the "Statement of Principles" lies only on the number of
> signatories: the more they will be, the more "value" the "Statement" will
> have.
> Of course, to avoid misunderstandings, I would suggest to change the wording
> of the sentence from "IANA currently has control over all TLDs in the global
> DNS" into "The 'new corporation' has control over all TLDs in the global
> DNS", which will not change the substance, but avoid discussions.

  Very true that there is not need for future discussions with respect to the
IANA as in control of the DNS.  As I have shown above from the "White Paper"
that cannot and will not happen and the IANA never was in a Controlling
position,
though they were given wide latitude, of the DNS system.

>
>
> Regards
> Roberto

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com