[discuss] [IANAxfer] [ccnso-igrg] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability
jcurran at istaff.org
Tue Sep 2 17:48:18 UTC 2014
On Sep 2, 2014, at 8:13 PM, manning bill <bmanning at isi.edu> wrote:
> John, is there a presumptive in your reasoning that there will always be a singular
> “IANA Operator” or could the various policy development bodies elect to discrete, other
> parties to perform the “IANA” functions for that specific group? i.e. are the tasks severable
> and if so, should they remain that way?
The IANA registries themselves are actually shared, e.g. the IPv4
space consists of technical/reserved entries from various IETF
specifications, and then general purpose IPv4 entries from the
RIR system. These entries need to come together at publication
into a single registry, and that's quite a bit easier if we're
all using the same IANA registry operator. The same argument
applies to DNS, in that portions of the DNS space are actually
defined by IETF (e.g. ".arpa") and these entries have a different
in origin than the general purpose portion of the DNS root zone.
Despite that, the entire DNS root zone needs to be published as
a single unit (particularly when one considers DNSSEC, etc.)
So, while the policy development is quite different, the actual
registries are sufficiently shared that a common IANA operator
makes the most sense (at least to me.) There's no clear benefit
from having discrete operators, and it would require some very
significant joint coordination to make work as successfully as
the present approach.
Disclaimer: my views alone.
More information about the discuss