Re: sole-sourceing IANA function to ICANN for next 3 years (fwd)

["James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

Geoff,

Agree that we need to be talking with Commerce about this. Not sure about having
the lawyers involved, but it would in any event be useful if we were to get an
opinion. Perhaps showing up first without them to gauge the waters, then
bringing them in later if necessary would be best.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Huston" <gih@telstra.net>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>; "Steve Bellovin"
<smb@research.att.com>; <iab@ietf.org>; <iesg@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: sole-sourceing IANA function to ICANN for next 3 years (fwd)


> At 07:33 PM 2/3/2003 -0800, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
>
> >--On 3. februar 2003 15:40 -0500 Steve Bellovin <smb@research.att.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Not sure how much of "our" part of IANA is involved.
> >
> >All of it.
> >And the RIRs' IANA too.
>
> sigh
>
> I had heard as much late last year (that Commerce did not accept the
> exchange of letters between he IETF and ICANN as carrying any weight and
> that they (Commerce) believed that the protocol parameter assignment function
> for IETF Internet protocols was a function that was under the terms of a
> contract
> issued by the US Department of Commerce and that they (Commerce)
> had never relinquished this role and would continue to issue IANA contracts
> with this role included.
>
> Frankly I'm not sure its a Hale and Dorr matter as much as one of opening a
> direct
> dialogue with the contract officer at Commerce and her various masters and
> overlords within that agency to at least understand their position and work
> out how to proceed from there in terms of the interests of the IETF.
>
> regards,
>
>    Geoff
>
>
>
>
>
>