Understanding (was: Choices Faced by ISOC, IFWP and ...)

["William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson@greendragon.com>]

It has become apparent that several of the recent posters do not
understand the purpose of IANA incorporation and the processes of the
IETF.  For example:

> From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
> We have a last call on a document that is in effect a constitution for the
> internet.

No, on the contrary, we have a last call on a pair of documents to
establish a small corporation (with only 2 or 3 staff members) to
administer some names and numbers for the Internet.  Neither the
corporate staff nor the proposed oversight (by a maximum 19) board
members constitute a government for the Internet.

Do we really need 19 folks to oversee 3 staff?  Probably not ... but we
have been forced into this position by the ignorance of the vox populi.


>"Al Costanzo" writes:
> I have heard from the copyright office concerning the ISOC copyright notice
> placed on RFCs.
>
The RFC Editor is not an IANA function.  ISoc has been acting as
official holder of the RFC series copyright for several years now, and
we have an explicit copyright notice to that effect, written by lawyers
that were paid to do the necessary research, and approved by the IETF
POISED/POISSON WG, the IESG, the IAB, and the ISoc Board.  The RFC
Editor is selected by the IAB, as granted them in their charter
[RFC-1601].

This thread may be due to the misconception that incorporating IANA will
somehow supercede ISoc, IAB, or other bodies in the Internet community.
Rather, IANA _serves_ the Internet community.


> From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
> show of hands indicated that less than 25% of the
> attendance had even read it? And then the IAB
> immediately proposes language to approve it?

Fairly clearly, this report came from someone not in attendance, and
ignorant of the workings of the IETF.

In the olden days, we complained when less than 1/2 of a Working Group
had read a draft.  But, we thought that WG with more than 20 members was
getting too large.  Lately, we often have Working Groups reporting out a
draft that as few as 5 members have read, when there are hundreds on the
mailing lists (where the official work is done) and/or 80 at a
face-to-face meeting.  It is a rare document indeed that has 25%
readership.  We have too many newcomers.

That 25% out of the 2,000 in attendance had read the IANA drafts was
simply amazing!  But then, the open plenary has been shown the proposed
structure and modifications for the corporate IANA for 3 meetings in a
row, and we have been following the modifications requested by other
"stakeholders" in the Internet that we built.

After the WG passes the work to the IESG, there is a "last call" for
_everyone_ to review and recommend final changes.  While _everyone_ in
the IETF has a "last call" opportunity, the decision to "approve" it in
this matter is the _exclusive_ domain of the IAB, as granted them in
their charter:

RFC 1601                      IAB Charter                     March 1994

      The IAB shall also designate an Internet Assigned Numbers
      Authority (IANA) to administer the assignment of Internet protocol
      numbers.

Therefore, while we all have an opportunity to recommend specific
wording changes to the most recent drafts, we should not expect that a
plebiscite will be taken.  We have already selected representatives.

WSimpson@UMich.edu
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32