[ih] IP addresses are not phone numbers, was Some Questions over IPv4 Ownership

[Dave CROCKER]

On 10/18/2010 1:31 AM, Tony Li wrote:
> Am I incorrect?  The documents that I can find claim that routing and
> addressing are both architecturally under the IETF.  As that's not a legal
> entity, the relevant parent is ISOC.


Ah, ok.  The 'isoc has authority over the ietf' model.

I think you meant that the IETF is not incorporated.  As I understand it, there 
are a number of unincorporated legal entities (with the most familiar being 
Doing Business As -- DBA.)  I'm told that they do have legal standing.  (One of 
the discussions on this topic included an attorney telling us all what the legal 
term was for an original, IETF-styled arrangement but I forget what it was.

Of course, now that there is the IETF Trust, even the IETF has an incorporated 
component (albeit only designed for handling IPR.)

ISOC's oversight is extremely constrained and pertains strictly to process -- 
although their approval of an IAB Nomcom slate does sometimes get rather more 
substantive.

I believe administrative delegations come from IETF standards.  I had not heard 
that ISOC got into the middle of such processes.

d/


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net