On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote: > I strongly object to your characterization of ICANN as "abandoning" > the operation of roots and IP address allocation. These matters have > been the subject of discussion for some time. I can't seem to recall during my 2 1/2 years on ICANN's board that there ever was any non-trivial discussion, even in the secrecy of the Board's private e-mail list or phone calls, on the matters of IP address allocation or operation of the DNS root servers. Because I was the person who repeatedly tried to raise these issues, only to be repeatedly met with silence, I am keenly aware of the absence of any substantive effort, much less results, by ICANN in these areas. So, based on my source of information, which is a primary source - my own experience as a Director of ICANN, I must disagree that ICANN has actually faced either the issue of DNS root server operations or of IP address allocation. And ICANN's "enhanced architecture for root server security" was so devoid of content as to be embarrassing - See my note at http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000007.html The DNS root server operators have not shown any willingness to let ICANN impose requirements on the way they run their computers. Indeed, the deployment of anycast-based root servers without even telling ICANN in advance, much less asking for permission, is indicative of the distance between the operations of the root servers and ICANN. [I believe that the anycast change was a good one. However, there is no way to deny that that change was made independently of ICANN.] Sure, ICANN prepares, or rather, Verisign prepares and ICANN someday hopes to prepare, the root zone file that the DNS root servers download. But to say that preparation of a small, relatively static, text file is the same as overseeing the root servers is inaccurate. In addition, the root server operators have shown that they are very able to coordinate among themselves without ICANN's assistance. > ICANN absolutely recognizes the critical role of the RIRs Again, recognizing the RIRs is an admission that ICANN has abandoned its role as the forum in which public needs for IP addresses and technical demands for space and controled growth of routing information are discussed and balanced. Fortunately the RIRs have matured and are themselves the IP address policy forums that ICANN was supposed to have been. Moreover, the RIRs have shown that they are more than capable of doing a quite good job of coordinating among themselves. > There is still need for coordination of policy among these groups > and the other interested constituents and that is the role that > ICANN will play. Again, ICANN can not demonstrate that it has engaged, because it has not engaged, in the "coordination" of IP address "policy". Sure, ICANN has facilitated the creation of a couple of new RIRs. But again, there is vast distance between that and ICANN being the vehicle for policy formulation or oversight to ensure that those policies are in the interest of the public and technically rational. I have serious doubts that ICANN will be able to meet its obligations under the most recent terms of the oft-amended Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Department of Commerce. I see no sign that the DNS root server operators or the RIRs are going to allow themselves to become dependencies of ICANN and to allow their decisions to be superseded by decisions of ICANN's Board of Directors. --karl--