[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Feb 18 02:46:21 UTC 2014
On 18/02/2014 14:55, Joe Alhadeff wrote:
> You comments come close to considering the ongoing operational and infrastructure stability of the Internet. The concept of volunteers scrambling to fill an important sounds likely but does not provide the kind of confidence that would fit into business continuity or disaster recovery programs...
Of course not. All I was saying was that if some disaster (political
or physical) broke IANA, it would soon be replaced. Stability would
come later in such a scenario.
> I don't wish to be a broken record, but it would be nice if proposals for change for focus on these stability issues as part of the concept.
Certainly. But that would be a pretty standard IT operations issue;
actually IANA went through that once before, in the transfer from
ISI to ICANN. That part isn't mysterious; getting rid of the useless
NTIA contract is the mysterious part, to me.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
> To: discuss at 1net.org
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 5:08:33 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
> On 18/02/2014 08:59, Ian Peter wrote:
>> One last point on some postings elsewhere which suggest legislative
>> action might be needed for a change in US role in authorisation of IANA
>> functions. But if IANA ceases to exist as part of the process
>> improvement suggested in this area, this would probably overcome that need?
> IANA isn't going to cease to exist.
> If there was any kind of disastrous failure of the current provider
> of IANA services (which I do not anticipate), the technical community
> would scramble around and create a new IANA service provider. It would
> need to be done within a week or two, but I have no doubt that it would
> be done, by volunteers initially.
> On 18/02/2014 09:35, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>> Offices can be opened and manned in different location but the concern *would
>> be in keeping the core critical internet infrastructure within the US* so
>> as not to interfere with Security, stability and resiliency.
> Why would there be such a concern, except for a technical transition
> period? We can have secure, stable and resilient services in most
> parts of the world these days.
> I could readily imagine the main office being in Switzerland and
> the core infrastructure in Sweden, just to pick an example.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss