On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:57:26AM +0200, David Conrad wrote:
> Bill,
>
> On Jul 25, 2010, at 10:21 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > except ICANN has presumed for itself an operational role.
>
> ICANN, since its inception, has been the IANA functions _operator_. It
> inherited the role IANA staff performed prior to ICANN's creation. As far as
> I am aware, other than DNSSEC stuff (e.g., handling the root KSK), there has
> not been a significant change in the operational role ICANN performs beyond
> what has been requested by the community (if any).
and here we see how english is a poor language.
yes, ICANN is the current IANA functions _operator_. The IANA _never_
ran/operated network infrastructure (root server operations) prior to
ICANNs
assumption of the role. This is the distinction. Perhaps w/o a
difference.
> > it has taken on root server operations for some years now
>
> Yes. I think the folks who run L can be pretty proud of their achievements.
> Want to compare root server operations? :-)
Yes they do a fine job. But root server operations is not in ICANNs
charter or
mission. Their stated role, when they took it over from USC was as a
temporary
steward, until they could find someone to take it on. Only later did
they
back away from that statement and claimed it for their own.
> > and is trying to take over root zone editorial control.
>
> Actually, no, it isn't. The US Department of Commerce has been pretty clear
> that they are happy with the current model in which ICANN receives and vets
> root zone change requests, DoC NTIA authorizes those requests, and VeriSign
> edits the root zone and publishes it. Despite some portions of the ICANN
> community not being happy with this state of affairs, I'd be surprised if
> this changed anytime soon and I'm not aware of anyone in ICANN actively
> pursuing a change.
You describe the current state of affairs very well. From a reasonably
recent counterpoint,
there were several models proposed for the recently augmented root zone
mgmt task. One
of the proposed (and rejected) models showed a much larger role for
ICANN in the root zone
generation process. Those of us who reviewed these models (in the NTIA
NoI) saw this
as a (perhaps reasonable) way to reduce the roles played by the other
two actors.
> Regards,
> -drc
> (no longer working for ICANN, but feeling a need to defend it against
> baseless bashing)
Regards,
--bill
(not baseless bashing, just pointing out some facts)
>
