[discuss] [IANAxfer] [ccnso-igrg] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability

Thu Sep 4 05:14:37 UTC 2014

John's case for a single IANA registry seems weak to me, especially when it touches on DNS. 
See below

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Bill -
> 
>  The IANA registries themselves are actually shared, e.g. the IPv4  space consists
> of technical/reserved entries from various IETF  specifications, and then general

Please specify these entries. 

> purpose IPv4 entries from the  RIR system.  These entries need to come together
> at publication  into a single registry, and that's quite a bit easier if we're  all using
> the same IANA registry operator.  

> The same argument  applies to DNS, in that
> portions of the DNS space are actually  defined by IETF (e.g. ".arpa") and these
> entries have a different  in origin than the general purpose portion of the DNS
> root zone.

Which is why they are easily separable. .arpa is just a TLD registry. It does not need to be run by the same entity that runs the DNS root zone any more than .com or .music needs to be run by the IANA. 

>  Despite that, the entire DNS root zone needs to be published as  a single unit
> (particularly when one considers DNSSEC, etc.)
> 
> There's no clear benefit  from having discrete operators, and it
> would require some very  significant joint coordination to make work as
> successfully as  the present approach.

The potential benefit might be that the highly politicized and commercialized DNS-related activities would be separate from the other stuff, which is less controversial. 