[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)
Also speaking as a non-US citizen and non US-resident and as
someone who has never worked for the US government in any
capacity (but reserves the right to do so in the future), I
have a few comments to add.
Masataka Ohta wrote:
> > 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.
Agreed. However it is necessary to assure a platform for
the technical continuity we all desire, just as it is
useless in an IT shop to attempt to tune a database if the
server is crashing and/or might be moved to a different
> > 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.
If it were as easy as this, there would have been no need
for a White Paper, Green Paper, terabytes of e-mail,
lawsuits, meetings, media campaigns, etc. Like it or not,
the US govt. has authority over certain assets.
Like it or not, (see Karl Auerbach's analysis at
http://www.cavebear.com/nsf-dns/ ) has given credence to the
notion that the .com database is proprietary information.
It is important to remember that the net is edge-controlled,
although the phenomena of inertia gives it the appearance of
central control. If there is not a broad movement towards
consensus, those unhappy with the result will assert edge
control, file lawsuits, petition congress to block the
transfer of assets, etc. I think most participants would
rather keep the net edge-controlled with the appearance of
central control. It would be a pain for everyone to have to
make decisions on the their root cache. Or we could all
undo the past few years work and go back to editing
There is nothing we can do to prevent any of the above from
happening. However, we *can* make it apparent through
working openly towards consensus that those who choose to be
left out are marginal uncooperative interests. If we don't,
> > 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
MBA LLB BSc
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J0X 1N0 e-mail:firstname.lastname@example.org