[discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web Policymaking Body

SM sm+1net at elandsys.com
Sun Mar 16 15:05:56 UTC 2014

Hi John,
At 06:24 16-03-2014, John Curran wrote:
>I'd like to explore the various roles just a bit, so I can better 
>understand what is
>really proposed in "the IGP plan".  To do this, I'd like to consider 
>the tasks performed
>for the generic case of IANA protocol parameter registries and then 
>for the specific
>case of the DNS root zone registry, as revised per the IGP proposal.
>(I'll spare repeating all of the IETF registry background, but one 
>can refer to for
>for reference)
>When the IETF specifies a protocol, there are often associated 
>registries.  To a rough
>approximation, the IESG is the policy development body (as it works 
>with the community
>via working groups and approves the registry creation via the "IANA 
>section of an RFC) and the IAB is the registry authority.  Via the 
>mechanisms in RFC
>6220 and per an MOU with ICANN (RFC 2860), the IAB has arranged for 
>ICANN to perform
>the IANA registry administration and operations tasks.  In this 
>role, IANA receives
>requests from third parties to make entries in any IETF registry, 
>and if they conform
>with the established policy for the registry then the entry is 
>made.  This approach
>encourages both clarity of registry policy as well as fair and 
>impartial administration
>of the registry itself.

The policy for the IETF protocol parameter registry is set by the 
IETF.  It is usually discussed at the working group level.  There is 
very little (IETF Community) interest in registry policy as it is a 
matter of documenting the administrative details.  The work on the 
IANA side is clerical.  The registrations are free.

S. Moonesamy 

More information about the discuss mailing list