Subject: Re: [iucg] [Internetgovtech] an initial proposal wrt IANA developments

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:58:24 +0100

Jari,

for historic reasons, the NTIA/DoC/USG's vision of the internet, i.e. 
their virtual global network information center (INTERNIC), has 
prevailed in coordinating an accepted convenient reduction of the 
Internet capacities (particularly in the naming area) where:
- the "US ccTLD" was the "elder" of the family
- was organized by its government as "ICANN",
- that other national ccTLDs joined in the ICANN/GAC to assist it in 
coordinating the DNS and the IP addressing plan.

The NTIA retirement not only removes the USG historic participation, 
but it also calls for the same retirement by all the other 
Governments. The NTIA precludes to be replaced by any governmental 
organization. This is a complete change in the 36 year old nature of 
the international packet switch naming and addressing spaces. The 
IETF cannot do anything about it as it is not in the business of 
deciding who is a State, who is the political authority over a ccTLD, 
and who can delegate (ICANN or other) national address sets if such a 
thing exists.

We, therefore, are in a situation where the "minority leader" (US), 
which assumed responsibility until now, quits in refusing the 
successor that the majority has decided on. Dubai WCIT is supported 
by nations covering 3.8 billion people, while the non-signatories 
cover 2.6 billion, and .6 billon had to technically abstain. This is 
a democratic, market, and political fact that the IETF cannot oppose, 
but has to consider in order to get it technically addressed. IETF, 
IAB, ISOC, W3C, and IEEE and IETF, IAB, ISOC, W3C, RIRs, and ICANN 
have committed to positions that give leadership either to economical 
and/or political decisions that informed users from the Libre, 
Institutional and Competitive sectors (IUsers) and other affected 
parties have not, so far, published that they had understood, or 
approved.  I appealed them, allowing me to appeal to ISOC, what I 
would not prefer to do as long as other possibilities of consensus 
have not been proposed, studied, and exhausted.

The situation which is likely to develop is the situation that the 
NTIA's strategy has tried to prevent for 30 years, because it 
reflects the reality of the world's diversity independence from US 
interests. This means a multiple class DNS and ISO 3166 structured 
IPv6 addressing plan and registries. The question is, therefore, who 
is to provide the necessary documentation, for this to happen in good 
order, knowing that:

- this documentation should be public domain, i.e. not under IETF 
Trust Copyright and with the capacity to impeach derivative work.
- it is very simple to organize from ISO 3166.
- neither the NTIA nor the multitude will accept it to be published 
by a governmental multilateral body, what ISO is not.

ICANN, being a member of the ISO 3166/MA (Maintenance Agency), I suggest that:
- the necessary documents of reference are written and maintained as 
a new work intended proposal (NWIP) by this maintenance agency. Such 
an NWIP could be introduced by ANSI and written by ICANN. It would 
then be subject to the vote of every nation in terms of participation 
and contribution.
- every affected party (IETF, ICANN, Govs, private sector 
organizations, JTC1, ITU, civil society organization, the multitude 
of persons) could then send the ISO 3166/MA recommendations and 
suggest members for an advisory panel to review and consolidate them. 
The NWIP could determine the rules governing the selection process of 
such a panel in such a way that a full MS approach is respected 
including the Public, Private, Civil, Libre, Technical, and Academic sector.
- the maintenance of this list could be assumed within the DNSA 
framework under the supervision of the ISO 3166/MA agency in order to 
provide good reactivity and permit a permanent MS multilogue under 
the auspices of the independent non-Governmental normative leading 
agency whose standard has ensured the international stability of the 
international data services since their very inception in full 
coherence with the whole global standardization process.

I note that if the post-NTIA transition is not seamless and this 
scheme has not been explored, documented and engaged by an 
IETF/ICANN/DNSA working group, responsibility will lie with IETF and/or ICANN.
jfc