Subject: some pending IASA issues

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:43:10 +0100

I would like to rise a few points IRT the IASA effort. Keeping in mind that 
Members will have to adopt it and the world to trust it.

1. Transparence is of the essence: I would advise the Transition Team 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/adminrest/transteam page to be linked on the 
http://ietf.org main page. Important information such as the bios of the 
members (including corporate relations and geographical area) are missing. 
The http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-05.txt current 
draft should be linked there.

2. ISOC is an international organization, yet there is no indication about 
relations with ISOC local chapters. For organizing local IETF lists, 
assisting with IETF meetings, documenting specific local issues when 
requested, encouraging regional workshops, meetings, shows, publications. 
This should  be noted in a short paragraph to acknowledge national/regional 
contributions and support and to leave open any further 
suggestion/development. Cost: 3lines to be added.

3. Regional representation. Most of the Internet organizations make sure 
their BoD is regionally distributed. This is not appropriate for a 
technical entity, however IAOC is an administrative body. I would suggest 
the Draft Section 4 to include a recommendation (not an obligation) that 
all the main parts of the world are represented at the IAOC. Cost: 2 lines 
to be added.

4. multilingualism. There is no provision for Secretariat and Editor 
translations services, nor for the IAD command of languages. This is 
surprising in a 7260 languages world. I do not say the IAD is to speak many 
languages nor that publications are to be translated. But I definitely say 
that this question must be addressed with a policy statement. This 
statement could be that at the present time the multilingualism issue is 
not addressed, but should be included in a further global review of the 
Internet standard process to support a Multilingual Internet. Cost: 3 lines 
to be added.

5. stability/accountability. As long as decisions by the IAD can be 
questioned by anyone else than the IAOC and the IAOC may be accountable for 
its decisions one by one rather than for the respect of received 
directions, this will be subjective with an important risk of confusion. I 
suppose that O'Reilly may start publishing "ORCs" from the Drafts and the 
Internet may survive if the IETF is blocked by IASA-DoS? But is that what 
we want?

6. The IAD is supposed to be a solitary job. Has anyone considered : "I am 
the IAD, let me understand my job and organize my calendar. Even with 48 
hours non stop a day, can I carry it all?". I feel there is a few points 
which are missing. For example, how can he ask guidance to the IETF, IAB or 
IESG? Is the guy entitled to vacations? What if he is sick: is a 
replacement to be hired? There are cost of life, salary level, productivity 
comparative tables. Did we consider them, when deciding where the IAD is to 
seat?

7. IANA management. Right now the IANA support is delegated to ICANN by 
IETF (RFC 2860) on one hand, and by the USG on another hand, 
http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-09feb00.htm. This last contract 
is questioned by the USGAO http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf and by 
other Govs on the same grounds. ICANN for some times tries to force another 
view which is "the IANA is an ICANN function". This might be a solution, 
but it should be worked on and warranties given.

The Internet can function without the IETF? not without the IANA. The legal 
situation of the IANA, its relations with the IASA, its situation in the 
case the USG contract is not renewed (as announced), in the case some of 
its main users ask the ITU to take over its functions as a (contingency?) 
plan, are important points. As the proposed RFC 3066bis draft issue shown 
it, we have IANA related issues to solve over multilingualism support, the 
intended propositions create but do not address.

The ICANN ICP-3 document http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-3.htm called for an 
experimentation of the DNS evolution. This could have lead to a debate over 
the Internet evolution. We followed on the ICANN request and found a need 
and an evolution towards a concerted distribution of the IANA function and 
the need of its intergovernance. This is only a private vision, there 
should be others to be debated by now. The market evolution runs ahead: our 
work, the market, the tensions over the uncomplete RFC 3066bis draft, the 
signals received through the WSIS, etc. show the IANA will probably a major 
issue in the coming years. The IASA proposition should build a stable, 
clear, politically independent IANA support, to help such a debate.

jfc

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:40:45 -0500

>>>>> "JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <[email-masked]> writes:

    JFC> 2. ISOC is an international organization, yet there is no
    JFC> indication about relations with ISOC local chapters. For
    JFC> organizing local IETF lists, assisting with IETF meetings,
    JFC> documenting specific local issues when requested, encouraging
    JFC> regional workshops, meetings, shows, publications. This
    JFC> should be noted in a short paragraph to acknowledge
    JFC> national/regional contributions and support and to leave open
    JFC> any further suggestion/development. Cost: 3lines to be added.

I agree it is appropriate for ISOC to discuss local chapters.

How do you see this impacting the IASA BCP?  Can you give an example
of what sort of change you are talking about?  Proposed text and an
indication of where it should go in the document would be best.

    JFC> 3. Regional representation. Most of the Internet
    JFC> organizations make sure their BoD is regionally
    JFC> distributed. This is not appropriate for a technical entity,
    JFC> however IAOC is an administrative body. I would suggest the
    JFC> Draft Section 4 to include a recommendation (not an
    JFC> obligation) that all the main parts of the world are
    JFC> represented at the IAOC. Cost: 2 lines to be added.

I agree that regional location is an important factor to consider when
selecting IAOC members.

--Sam

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:10:18 +0100

Jefsey,

at most other times, I would not have commented on this at all.
Today, the day before we plan to cut the "final" version of this document, 
it seems appropriate to comment on why your "issues" should NOT be 
addressed.

Remember always that the cost of text in the document is not about lines of 
text - it is about the organizational pain and suffering that comes from 
trying to fit actions to a maze of ill-thought-out random restrictions.

That said.....

--On 29. januar 2005 12:43 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> I would like to rise a few points IRT the IASA effort. Keeping in mind
> that Members will have to adopt it and the world to trust it.
>
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/adminrest/transteam page to be linked on
> the http://ietf.org main page. Important information such as the bios of
> the members (including corporate relations and geographical area) are
> missing.

If you want to know more about these people, ask, and explain why.
I'm not going to tell the TT members to waste time on writing bios rather 
than doing the work that is needed.

> The
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-05.txt current

Go one level up. That's the main page.

> 2. ISOC is an international organization, yet there is no indication
> about relations with ISOC local chapters. For organizing local IETF
> lists, assisting with IETF meetings, documenting specific local issues
> when requested, encouraging regional workshops, meetings, shows,
> publications. This should  be noted in a short paragraph to acknowledge
> national/regional contributions and support and to leave open any further

The IETF has never attempted to have an organization along geographical 
lines. ISOC has such an organization, but that bears no formal relationship 
with the standards process.
This document is not about changing the standards process.

> all the main parts of the world are represented at the IAOC. Cost: 2
> lines to be added.

The IAOC is an administrative body for a technical entity. So "not 
appropriate" applies.

> surprising in a 7260 languages world. I do not say the IAD is to speak
> many languages nor that publications are to be translated. But I
> definitely say that this question must be addressed with a policy
> statement. This statement could be that at the present time the
> multilingualism issue is not addressed, but should be included in a
> further global review of the Internet standard process to support a
> Multilingual Internet. Cost: 3 lines to be added.

Not appropriate for this version. This organization is being set up to 
support the IETF that exists, not an IETF that might be. If you want to 
change the multilingualism policies of the IETF, try that.

> questioned by anyone else than the IAOC and the IAOC may be accountable
> for its decisions one by one rather than for the respect of received
> directions, this will be subjective with an important risk of confusion.
> I suppose that O'Reilly may start publishing "ORCs" from the Drafts and
> the Internet may survive if the IETF is blocked by IASA-DoS? But is that
> what we want?

I have no idea what you mean here. Most of the interpretations that come to 
mind are meaningless; the rest are covered within the "appeals" debate.

> 6. The IAD is supposed to be a solitary job. Has anyone considered : "I
> am the IAD, let me understand my job and organize my calendar. Even with
> 48 hours non stop a day, can I carry it all?". I feel there is a few
> points which are missing. For example, how can he ask guidance to the
> IETF, IAB or IESG? Is the guy entitled to vacations? What if he is sick:
> is a replacement to be hired? There are cost of life, salary level,
> productivity comparative tables. Did we consider them, when deciding
> where the IAD is to seat?

Yes, we assume that the IAD is human. And we assume that the IAD knows 
where to find the people of the IESG and IAB, and use the IETF mailing 
lists as needed. This is in the category I call "too obvious to state".

> http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-09feb00.htm. This last
> contract is questioned by the USGAO
> http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf and by other Govs on the same
> grounds. ICANN for some times tries to force another view which is "the
> IANA is an ICANN function". This might be a solution, but it should be
> worked on and warranties given.

Not relevant to this document. IANA is one of the relationships the IAD has 
to care about, but details of these relationships do not belong in this 
document.

I guess the rest of your text is just commentary.... it seems to be about 
ICANN or about technical work related to the DNS, not about the IASA.

Summary: No change.

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:02:57 +0100

At 10:10 31/01/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>Jefsey,
>at most other times, I would not have commented on this at all. Today, the 
>day before we plan to cut the "final" version of this document, it seems 
>appropriate to comment on why your "issues"

Dear Harald,
If you want the IETF to continue, there will be a judge to this effort: 
real life. Real life is that IPv6 is still not being deployed. Real life is 
that people are not excited about two keyboards IDNs. If you accept that 
the Internet is the adherence to the IETF documents, the first thing is to 
make sure people trust the IETF and adhere (know and support) to its process.

>should NOT be addressed.

Sounds like as if I succeeded in documenting exactly what this document is 
NOT about!  I suggest next time you start discussing something you call on 
me and ask what I think important (with a substantial part of the world) so 
you know exactly what you have not to cover. If this may help, you welcome.

>Remember always that the cost of text in the document is not about lines 
>of text - it is about the organizational pain and suffering that comes 
>from trying to fit actions to a maze of ill-thought-out random restrictions.

Absolutely true. This is not in constraining reality that you will shape 
it. Your decision.

Now, "ill-tought-out random restrictions" does not exactly describes 
propositions to permit a further open investigation on world's documented 
priorities. Or my Franglish is worst than I thought.

>than doing the work that is needed.

OK. Your decision. But transparency is at this type of cost.  I fully 
understand that IETF is not a PR agency. But it is like everyone else: it 
needs customers. This reform is going to cost in money and in trust. Every 
change in life does.

>Go one level up. That's the main page.

KISS. You are not in an Ivory Tower. You are selling the IETF deliverables.

>lines. ISOC has such an organization, but that bears no formal 
>relationship with the standards process. This document is not about 
>changing the standards process.

This document IS obviously to change the standard process. In which way, I 
do not know, but it will. Simply because life is changing and the world 
outside has/is/will change. Please reread the RFC 1958 first and single 
principle.

The standardization process calls for innovation. Innovation calls for 
projects and brainstorming. This cannot be easily catalyzed in the current 
structure: experience shows it. Its complexity filters out 
independent/small corporation searchers and users propositions. This is why 
different geo areas start fostering local research teams. As they cannot 
stay local another organization will foster their common effort. Or did you 
accept IETF will not deal with NGN?

>The IAOC is an administrative body for a technical entity. So "not 

If you say so. Your decision.

>change the multilingualism policies of the IETF, try that.

1. the world is doing it.
2. I do not want to change it. I only want you do not prevent it to change. 
When you say "not appropriate for this version" you _exactly_ say what I say.

>I have no idea what you mean here. Most of the interpretations that come 
>to mind are meaningless; the rest are covered within the "appeals" debate.

dear ... is there an international lawyer/politician in the TT?
BTW "appeals" over _what_?

>Yes, we assume that the IAD is human.

"we"?

>And we assume that the IAD knows where to find the people of the IESG and 
>IAB, and use the IETF mailing lists as needed. This is in the category I 
>call "too obvious to state".

I repeat it. Did you try to set your daily time table, would you be the IAD?
Did you compare the costs of life to know where he is to seat? Did you 
consider the legal limitations imposed to some by some places?
You did not respond about what happens if the guy is ill?
You impose a multinational holding+secretariat function on a single person. 
How many hours a day is him/she supposed to keep? Do you demand that he 
works on Thursday/Friday/Saturday?

>Not relevant to this document. IANA is one of the relationships the IAD 
>has to care about, but details of these relationships do not belong in 
>this document.

I quote your draft "The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) 
provides the administrative structure required to support the IETF 
standards process and to support the IETF's technical activities.  As of 
the    time at which this document was written, this included the work of 
IETF working groups, the IESG, the IAB, and the IRTF.  Should the IETF 
standards process at some future date come to include other technical 
activities, the IASA shall provide administrative support for those 
activities as well.".

I quote RFC 2860. "its intent is exclusively to define the technical work 
to be carried out by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority on behalf of 
the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Research Task Force."

IETF technical activities/works are concerned by both documents. The ICANN 
position changes. The IETF position is rebuilt. The world understanding of 
the IANA is changing. IANA is challenged.

Harald, I do not want to play Cassandra. But we feel that the document 
which is under production does not addresses the needs of our real world. 
This was my last attempt to try to help in order to avoid a confuse 
transition over the years to come.

Look, if you really trusted the IETF, you would have set-up a WG-Languages.
But after all, may be you are right, the IETF is better to fall asleep.

>Summary: No change.

Seems the best comment. RIP in a changing world.

jfc

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 01:20:27 +0100

>indication of where it should go in the document would be best.

The target is not to modify the Internet process but to anchor it in its 
international context and to promote local contributions. There is a coming 
IETF meeting in Paris. The French ISOC chapter was not informed, we have no 
local contact. The discussion about the weather in Paris, would have been a 
good occasion to prepare more ties. There are specific needs that come from 
different situations and different cultures, as the current Pacific Debate 
on Governance shows it. These needs need to be documented and addressed.

Also, ISOC chapter could help some local PRs. IETF is a complex/heavy 
process to follow for individuals. Helping local teams to gather can only 
help research and proposition seeds to be introduced by independent/small 
companies and schools. This is certainly something ISOC Chapters can help.

I think we could add in part 7 after "Independence":

    International: ISOC shall work with its local Chapters, the IAD and IAOC to
       document how the IETF meetings and Internet standard process could take
       advantage from the ISOC international presence and market knowledge.

>I agree that regional location is an important factor to consider when

Yes. But, it should only be mentionned as a recommendation. So there is no 
embarrassing obligation. As for suggested ISOC Chapters and 
multilingualism, the target is to open the way to further work on the issue.

jfc