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

Thu Sep 4 06:33:25 UTC 2014

I trimmed the cc:s to the list I'm on.

On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 05:14:37AM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > of technical/reserved entries from various IETF  specifications, and then general
> 
> Please specify these entries. 

For instance, RFC 1918 addresses are IPv4 addresses just like anything
else, and yet the RIRs don't have any say over their use.  There's a
large number of such addresses outlined now in BCP 153.

> 
> 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. 
> 

There is the issue of the special-use names, however, which could
include (and indeed do -- cf. local.) top-level domains.  That
certainly requires some co-ordination.

Again, I think the main point is that things are just easier if we
have co-ordination in the same body.  If that turns out to have too
many problems, then we can split up the functions; but it seems wise
(just in terms of plain engineering) to change as few things as
practical at any one time.

>  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.

That observation is certainly true.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com