Subject: FYI -- First draft IETF/IANA contract (fwd)

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:20:49 -0500 (EST)

Let me say that I concur with Mr. Auerbach's
 opinion though perhaps for differing reasons.
 IETF is no more and no less than one of many
 potential advisory bodies to the organization
 that will replace IANA (be that ICANN, ORSC or 
 yet another group). To have such an agreement
 as is advocated by Mr. Carpenter signed in
 advance of this turn-over will be to hand-cuff
 this body in advance and hard-wire IETF into
 what amounts to a veto position over Internet
 governance. This is unacceptable.

 Finally if it wasn't apparent before IETF is
 entirely engaged in a political struggle. In
 opposition to public  pronouncements this makes
 this forum and the IETF a political forum. And
 this and other messages discussing the issues
 outlined below absolutely appropriate. 

 Respectfully,

 Bob Allisat

 Free Community Network _ [email-masked] . http://fcn.net
 http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:20:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: IFWP Discussion List <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ifwp] FYI -- First draft IETF/IANA contract (fwd)

FYI...

I personally find the following attached proposed agreement to be
absolutely unacceptable.

It is merely a services contract under which the IETF gets ICANN
to perform clerical services, probably without compensation, and under
which ICANN can exert no policy role.

And this gets an SO and three board seats?

I personally find this proposal to be in total conflict with the purposes
espoused in the White Paper.

This raises with clarity the issue that the Protocol Parameters function
is merely a clerical job, free of policy ramifications.

As such, it should be removed entirely from ICANN, there should be no
Protocol Parameters Supporting Organization, and no board seats for such
an organization.

The IETF should, like other standards bodies, undertake to pay for its own
administrative clerical jobs.

ICANN should reject the following submission from the IETF/IAB as being
contrary to the policies of the White Paper.

		--karl--

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:33:31 +0000
From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Esther Dyson <[email-masked]>,
    Mike Roberts <[email-masked]>,
    [email-masked],
    Zita <[email-masked]>
Subject: First draft IETF/IANA contract
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:01:30 -0800 (PST)
Resent-From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Resent-To: [email-masked]
Resent-Subject: First draft IETF/IANA contract

Poisson,     cc Esther Dyson, Mike Roberts, Joyce Reynolds, Zita Wenzel

To get moving as quickly as possible, here is a rough draft of the 
proposed contract between the IETF (probably represented by the ISOC) 
and the IANA (represented by whichever legal entity ends up being 
responsible, potentially ICANN).

This draft has been discussed in the IAB and IESG but IANA, ICANN 
and ISI have not commented on it. It is intended to represent 
"heads of agreement" or principal terms, rather than a full 
contract. We have not attempted to add the many contractual 
provisions that might otherwise be advisable in the definitive 
contract.

Therefore please discuss only the questions of principle,
within the narrow question of IETF/IANA relations,
and we will turn it into an Internet Draft after a first
round of discussion. 

   Brian Carpenter

DRAFT TERMS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE IETF AND THE IANA

This agreement is between the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).

1. This agreement is valid for one year [3 years??], tacitly renewed 
on expiry unless cancelled with 6 months notice from either party.

2. The IANA will, [at no charge??], assign and register IETF protocol
parameters only as directed by the IETF. The criteria and 
procedures for this are specified by the IETF in RFCs, including
Proposed, Draft and full IETF Standards and Best Current
Practice documents, and any other RFC that calls for IANA assignment. 
If they are not so specified, or in case of ambiguity, IANA will 
continue to assign and register Internet 
protocol parameters that have traditionally been registered by IANA,
following past and current practice for such assignments, unless 
otherwise directed by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). 
If in doubt or in case of a technical dispute, IANA will seek and 
follow technical guidance exclusively from the IESG.

The IETF will develop any missing criteria and procedures over time,
which the IANA will adopt when so informed by the IESG.

3. In the event of dispute between the IANA and the IETF, both
will seek guidance from the IAB whose decision shall be final.

4. Two particular assigned spaces present policy issues, in addition
to the technical considerations specified by the IETF: the
assignment of top level domain names, and the assignment of IP address
blocks. These policy issues are outside the scope of the present 
agreement.

5. The IANA shall make available to the public, free of charge,
full details of all current assignments, using the second level
domain name "iana.org". 

6. In the event of termination of this agreement by either party,
the intellectual property in the database of all current assignments,
and the use of the domain name "iana.org", shall revert to the IETF.

7. The IANA shall provide on-line facilities for the public to request
Internet protocol parameter assignments and shall either execute
such assignments, or deny them for non-conformance with applicable
technical requirements, in a timely manner. There shall be no charge
for assignments without the consent of the IETF and requests shall
only be denied on technical grounds.

For protocols within the IETF scope (i.e., registries created 
by IETF (IAB or IESG) action), appeals against such denials may be
made to the IESG and subsequently to the IAB as provided in 3 above.

8. The IANA shall have one non-voting liaison seat in  each of the 
IAB and IESG, and may participate in IAB and IESG discussions 
concerning technical requirements for protocol parameter assignment 
through such liaisons. 

9. The IANA shall review all documents in IETF Last Call to identify
any issues of concern to the IANA, and shall raise these issues
with the IESG.

---

__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [email-masked]

To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[email-masked]

To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[email-masked]

Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [email-masked].
___END____________________________________________