Michele Neylon - Blacknight
michele at blacknight.com
Mon Jan 6 13:56:28 UTC 2014
My only criticism of how IANA functions at the moment is in relation to ccTLDs.
According to the RFCs "significantly interested parties" are meant to know if there is a re-delegation request for a particular ccTLD, however IANA will not discuss any re-delegations that are being processed .. so it's a bit of a catch 22, which is rather frustrating if you happen to be a "significantly interested party"
Mr Michele Neylon
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2014 1:10 PM
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: [discuss] IANA
I wanted to share some thoughts on how I see IANA, its role and evolution. This is mostly from an IETF perspective, but it also touches on the role of IANA for addresses and domain names.
As pointed out by the article, the IAB and its IANA evolution team is working on a framework document that talks about the overall model, and the separation of oversight from policy and implementation. An early draft is here:
I know that the IAB and Olaf Kolkman would appreciate feedback, from both within the IETF and other parts of the ecosystem. They are soliciting feedback to the IAB internetgovtech list (http://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech) but we do of course take input from all directions we can get.
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss