[discuss] Interesting article

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 07:29:10AM +1300, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
> 
> While the parameter protocols covered by this are no doubt important
> to the IETF and others

Well, yes, like "everyone who has ever used email or a web browser."
Just because people don't know how it works doesn't mean it's
unimportant to them.  But anyway,

> angst that the control the US has over approving ccTLD changes in
> the root, or the policy issues over new gTLDs have caused other
> national governments.

several of us have been trying to say this for the better part of a
month: when people say "IANA" they really need to specify _what
function they're talking about_, because not everything IANA does is
the same.  Indeed, I took that to be Brian's point.

> If the NTIA contract with ICANN to perform the IANA functions were
> to be cancelled, presumably another entity would have to be
> appointed.

That entirely depends on what "IANA function" you mean.  The point is
that, if NTIA ditched the IANA contract, the protocol part (the part
that the IETF cares about directly) would be unaffected because the
IETF doesn't care what any national government has to say about
protocol parameters.  There's an MOU between the MOU-signing arm of
the IETF and ICANN.  Similarly, if the IETF were unhappy with ICANN's
performance of the relevant IANA function and NTIA was totally happy
to renew the IANA functions contract, that would not bind the IETF to
continue publishing protocol parameters that way.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com