<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1251"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
On 12.03.12 04:13, John Curran wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:16EA8EA4-C188-4292-802C-E28B1369D4C7@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>On Mar 11, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; font-size: medium; ">
<div>About the only way out, with regards to the current
situation is if ICANN Is brave enough to spin off IANA as
separate entity. </div>
</span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>Daniel - </div>
<div> </div>
<div> Could you elaborate on the above? I'm trying to understand
what</div>
<div> exactly you propose, and how that would solve the
situation.</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
I know, some of this may sound very speculative, but unfortunately
it is not.<br>
<br>
Some background:<br>
The 'change' in IANA within ICANN happened few years ago. Before
that point, IANA was an small, encapsulated entity that more or less
just shared office space with ICANN. IANA at that time had only
office equipment necessary to perform it's role.<br>
Then, ICANN decided to invest big in data center facilities. This
more or less coincides with the design and implementation of the
root DNSSEC signing. I believe IANA by itself did not have the
capacity to do anything like that and ICANN came as the big brother
to help. There was a lot of controversy during that time, whether
IANA/ICANN should perform this function on their own or they should
follow different model. My suggestion at the time was to separate
IANA as much as possible from ICANN, as this would be the only
chance to have IANA perform the root zone signing for DNSSEC and
that everyone would agree to it.<br>
<br>
One can argue, that before that tripping point, ICANN was the forum
for various stakeholders to meet together and achieve consensus.
This was about the only role which I could personally see ICANN do
and be equitable, but.. apparently someone there had different
agenda. With this infrastructure investment, ICANN prepared itself
to become yet another DNS Registry -- the registry of the root.
This, also coincided with the plans/introduction of the IDN Fast
Track and now the new gTLD expansion.<br>
<br>
Yet another issue ICANN has is with ccTLDs. It has been an situation
for so many years, where ICANN claimed that ccTLDs did not
contribute, in contrast with gTLDs (who in fact have contractual
relationship with ICANN). On the other hand, ccTLDs have always had
the position, that they are happy to contribute to whatever costs
IANA (but not ICANN) has, as it is IANA they are dealing with, with
regards to "services".<br>
<br>
Now back to your question: The moment ICANN invested in beefing up
the technical capability of IANA was the perfect time for IANA to be
spun off as an independent unit, perhaps under close supervision of
ICANN. Unfortunately, this would mean that ICANN could tie up their
own hands, with regards to their plans for being able to create new
top level domains at will.<br>
<br>
To do this separation today, ICANN has to be extremely brave, as to
ignore all the lobbying for the new gTLDs and all the promises in
that regard made by ICANN (staff). For when the separation becomes
reality, ICANN will become the policy body and IANA will become the
executive body -- with regards to the root DNS (there is a lot more
that IANA does, but ICANN does not see they money there, yet). There
will possibly be an controlling body as well.<br>
<br>
If IANA is separate entity, all ccTLDs will be more than happy to
support that entity, as it will be slim and transparent enough. This
is one problem, that is solved. A very long standing problem for
ICANN.<br>
This separation is exactly what NTIA has requested in the latest bid
and what ICANN has refused to demonstrate they can/will do. It is
therefore the primary reason for the current stopping of the bid. I
believe NTIA will be more than happy to accept that setup.<br>
<br>
By the way, this power separation model already exists in some
ccTLDs - where there is a separate policy making body and separate
technical executive body.<br>
<br>
There are already established "impartial" internet registries like
IANA - the various regional IP registries come to mind, like the
RIPE NCC. At one time, during this discussion it occurred to me,
that if ICANN fails to meet the NTIA requirements, perhaps one of
these will, most likely ARIN (as there was a requirement to be US
based, if I remember correctly). Or probably better, a new structure
built around that model. (as to not create conflict of interest,
because ARIN by itself is a "customer" for IANA services)<br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
</body>
</html>