PSO PC members,
For your information, the following has been submitted today to ICANN
as the IAB's response to the May 31 Evolution and Reform report.
regards,
Geoff Huston
-------------------------------------------------------
IAB Response to ICANN Evolution and Reform
June 2002
The IAB has carefully considered the recommendations made by the
Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform in their report of the 31st May
2002.
There are a number of points the IAB wish to highlight in this response.
1. The Protocol Support Organization
The report notes that "Dr. Lynn's Report and our Working Papers assume
that the PSO would be replaced by a Technical Advisory Committee", and
also includes the recommendation that "The Protocol Supporting
Organization should be dissolved."
The IAB is in general agreement with this recommendation, as the
IAB sees no merit in the continuation of the PSO, as currently
chartered.
2. The provision of Technical Advice to ICANN
The report proposes that a standing committee, called the Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC), be chartered with the provision of technical
advice to ICANN. It notes that the TAC could potentially be the body
responsible for directly overseeing the technical operational
activities of ICANN. The report also notes a potential alternative to
a TAC is the option of seeking advice on an ad hoc basis from relevant
technical bodies.
The IAB perceives the potential mix of advisory and operational
responsibility roles as being not mutually compatible and would
not see such a mix as being in the interests of the integrity of
the technical advisory role.
Furthermore, the IAB does not see a Technical Advisory Committee
as being a pre-requisite for the provision of technical advice to
ICANN. The IAB would like to note that technical issues often
require specific expertise to properly address and a standing
committee would, by necessity, not be able to bring appropriate
levels of expertise to every issue that may be referred to the
committee. There is also the weakness of having a technical
committee operate under an assumption that differences of
perspective should be resolved within the committee, and that a
committee would be driven by a need to arrive at a single answer,
whereas the issue of evaluating alternate technically feasible
solutions often has a significant policy component. The concept of
a standing committee exposes these weaknesses, whereas the
alternative of using a number of technically focussed
organizations and individuals on an ad hoc basis to provide
comment upon request should be considered by ICANN. In particular,
the IAB is willing to discuss liaisons from the IETF and using the
IETF as a nominations pool for technical advisory functions for
general Internet naming and numbering
The IAB is willing to engage in a dialogue with ICANN regarding
the manner in which the IAB, and the IETF, can provide technical
advice to ICANN.
3. ICANN Board Positions
The report proposes a number of ex-officio ICANN position positions,
including The Chair (or delegate) of the TAC if established, or if
not, the Chair (or delegate) of the IAB.
The IAB has concerns about an organizational structure whereby the
IAB directly participates in a process to seat members of the
ICANN Board. The IAB has argued, and continues to believe that
ICANN should separate technical advice from seating individuals on
ICANN's Board. The IAB believes this is a separate function from
providing the ICANN board with necessary technical input, and that
other IETF-specific protocol management functions should not be
the subject of ICANN Board-level planning.
4. IETF Protocol Parameters
The report references a statement of ICANN's mission which includes
the role of coordination of the allocation and assignment of Protocol
port and parameter numbers, as distinct from domain names and IP
addresses and Autonomous System numbers.
The IAB notes that this role is undertaken for the IETF as part of
the process of implementation of "IANA Considerations" in Internet
Standards-track protocol specifications (IETF protocols), as
specified in the MoU documented in RFC2860, and is distinct from the
ICANN role in the management of domain names and unicast IP
addresses. This IETF protocol parameter coordination role is an
integral component of the IETF's Internet Standards function. For
this reason the IAB disputes the assertion in the ICANN mission
statement that this particular role forms an integral part of
ICANN's mission.
The IAB is deeply concerned that the role of the management of
protocol parameter assignments for IETF Internet-Standard protocols
is being confounded within the deeper issues concerning the role of
ICANN with respect to the operation of the domain name system and
with respect to unicast IP address assignment.
This situation is not acceptable to the IAB. The IAB is evaluating
the best path forward to maintain the IETF's protocol parameter
coordination.
Leslie Daigle,
for the IAB.
--