Subject: IAB failure to execute its duties

From: "William Allen Simpson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 98 13:54:26 GMT

> From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 20:23:27 +0000
> > At 04:42 AM 2/23/98 GMT, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> > >We had tried to persuade the IAB to exercise their responsibilities
> > >under their Charter, and officially confirm the designation of Postel in
> > >his IANA role, something they have never formally finished.  This would
> > >have created a counter claim to the power to designate IANA.
> > >
> > >Unfortunately, the IAB was unable to reach consensus that they should
> > >support Postel.
>
> As a matter of fact the IAB note to Ira Magaziner states:
>
> > 4. We support the authority of the current IANA, including that over
> > the DNS root, throughout the transition period and we will be very
> > happy to assist in any measures to reinforce that authority.
>
> I do wish people would actually read what we write.
>
My message was written at 04:42, while your excerpted note was written
at 11:41 (according to the archive), so it would have been difficult to
"read" in advance....

What you wrote was too little, too late, for the purposes of my original
message, and previous requests.  It was not posted until this week, long
after the immediate issue had passed.  That piece of milquetoast is
lacking in substance.  The tiny bit of work apparently took multiple
teleconferences?

A few years back, we reconstituted the IAB.  We gave it very few
functions.  Yet, the IAB has failed to complete the functions required
in its Charter.

Where is the official IAB designation of the RFC Editor located?

Where is the official IAB designation of IANA located?

Where is ISI specifically designated?

Where is Postel specifically designated?

Where is the approved IANA Charter?

At the time of the request, sent directly to the IAB list after some
private discussion with some of its members, the executive was feeding
the press nonsense that Postel was a "rogue", and other uncomplimentary
terms, acting on his own.

The suggested text (in relevant part) sent to the IAB on Feb 6 was:

    Pursuant to the provisions of its Charter (RFC-1601 section 2.4), the
    Internet Architecture Board (IAB) selects a publication editor, and
    designates the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).

    The IAB has selected Jon Postel as RFC Editor.

    The IAB has designated the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) of the
    University of Southern California (USC) to administer IANA, with Jon
    Postel as Principal Investigator.

    The division of IANA activities into engineering and operational aspects
    with a future separate delegation of an Internet Root Server Authority
    is a matter for further study.

Now, this seems a no-brainer.  After all, the IAB would merely be
affirming the status quo.  Postel has been the Principal Investigator on
a fair number of grants to run IANA since before there was an IAB.

It was very important that the IAB explicitly support Postel.  The IAB
decided _not_ to support Postel.  This is self-evident, because the IAB
DID _NOT_ issue any timely statement supporting Postel.

The members of the IAB have apparently never learned the political
maxim, quoted here frequently, "hang together, or hang separately".

In any cooperative coalition, it is important to present a unified front
to the opposition.  While we may have problems with specific actions by
Postel over the years, and may argue about specific details among
ourselves, there is no excuse for dithering in this matter.

The IAB was our face to the public.  The IAB failed to present its face.

Just how hard is it?

Yet, the IAB has been incapable of performing its duties.

> > >The ISoc should deny confirmation for any IAB re-nominee that failed to
> > >support Postel.
>
> The IAB works by consensus, so this statement is pretty meaningless.
>
There are 2 checks on the IAB.  The NomCom selects persons to be a part
of the IAB.  The ISoc confirms the nominees.

The checks are needed to ensure that we do not have folks who do not get
their job done.  If the current nominees are not capable of arriving at
consensus in real time, then clearly the nominees are not up to the task
and should be rejected.

It would have been difficult for the NomCom to know that its nominees
would be able to exercise more than technical expertise.  It would be
difficult to determine in advance whether they are capable of stiffening
their backbone and working on policy in coalition.

The ISoc can see that the IAB has refused to finish its Chartered work
on designating IANA.

Moreover, certainly the ISoc can see that the IAB has not even been
officially willing to support the ISoc itself, which has been ignored
and written out of the "green" paper.

The IAB self-selected the ISoc as its confirming body.  The IAB never
asked the IETF for permission to do so.  Now, the IAB wants to avoid
accountability to ISoc?

[email-masked]
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 23:05:07 +0000

Bill,

I'm sorry that I mistook the sequence of the messages. With
the amount of sheer drivel on this list recently, it is
hard to keep track.

Apart from that, my feelings about the accuracy or relevance of 
the rest of your message are such that I had better stop typing.

Regards
       Brian Carpenter