Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)

["Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@unety.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Cc: mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>;
mueller@syr.edu <mueller@syr.edu>; vcerf@mci.net <vcerf@mci.net>;
discussion-draft@giaw.org <discussion-draft@giaw.org>; ietf@ietf.org
<ietf@ietf.org>; comments@iana.org <comments@iana.org>; Iana@iana.org
<Iana@iana.org>; List@giaw.org <List@giaw.org>
Date: Monday, July 13, 1998 4:34 AM
Subject: Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)


>Brian;
>
>> Speaking as a non-US citizen and non-US resident:
>
>Thank you.
>
>> I too had doubts about whether the new legal entity protecting the
>> IANA should be a non-profit corporation under US law.
>
>> However I am a pragmatist and I think most of us here are pragmatists.
>
>As a pragmatist, I don't have much doubt that IANA corporation
>under US law can operate stably.
>
>> We all agree that it is *above all* important to have technical
>> continuity and leave the technical staff of the IANA in peace to
>> do their work.
>
>Incorporation is, by no means, technical.
>
>> There is, given the time available before September 30,
>> only one way to achieve this: a non-profit corporation in California.
>
>Why do you think new corporation necessary?
>
>If we don't have time, IANA can be a department of ISOC, which is
>already incorporated. For the stability, then, ISOC itself should be
>relocated to, say, Geneve, as soon as possible.
>
>> There is no practical alternative, so let us concentrate on the only
>> real issue left, which is getting an initial Board of Directors with
>> sufficient honour and neutrality.
>
>What's wrong with ISOC BoT?
>
> Masataka Ohta
>

This is very similar to my previous comments about using ARIN
as the "corporate" vehicle. Jon Postel is on the ARIN Board. Also,
ARIN performs functions that are similar to the IANA and in some
cases ARIN functions will be moved to the new IANA. Most of the
focus will be on the management of the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone.

When Don Heath testified before the U.S. Congress, he described
the IETF in similar terms. I believe he said the IETF is the standards
making "division" of the ISOC. I am not certain if he described the
IANA as a division or not. No matter what, he portrayed himself as
the CEO of the whole enterprise and I have a feeling that a non-technical
member of Congress, with a law background would see it all as
part of the same "corporation".

It might save a lot of time and money to follow either the ISOC or
ARIN suggestions. No matter what, the IANA needs to become
part of a legal corporation. It probably does not matter which one.
At this point in time, the ISOC might be the better choice.
If the IANA becomes a division under Don Heath, then this is
similar to Don Heath becoming the CEO of the "new IANA".

Unfortunately, the White Paper says a "new" non-profit should be
formed and the ISOC and ARIN are not "new". That is probably not
a major problem. I doubt if the White House cares about that detail.
All the White House seems to care about is that it is handed to
Jon Postel and it moves OUT of USC/ISI. That is probably to protect
the DOD interests at USC/ISI and to get it away from the deep
pocket endowments of that private university.

Maybe Don Heath and Jon Postel can hold an on-line, interactive
discussion prior to their Geneva meeting to discuss these options.
Everyone could just listen. It might be an interesting option. Keep in
mind that this is basically the same path that created the IAHC. Jon
Postel tried to hand the legal hot potatoe to Don Heath and he took
it for a period of time. Now it might be back in his lap.


Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com