Subject: [Ltru] NTIA Statement of Principles

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 16:46:30 +0200

I apologise: I expected so much the return of the US policy to a common 
sense logic of national interests at the world digital ecosystem level that 
I did not realised, with the W.E., some has not been informed yet.

Here is the link to the statement of Mr. Gallagher: 
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.htm

 From two mails I received, I realise that this may be a shock to some, 
discovering there an opposition with the "IETF core values", by the main 
expected funder of Internet R&D (cf. RFC 3869). It is only a direct 
consequence of the "end to end" principle: States have responsibilities to 
their own ends, and to exercise them, in such an architecture, they must 
also control or really trust the other end.

The USA only take into consideration the current IETF architecture. They 
have identified this a while ago (gateway protocols): 
http://whitehouse.gov/pcipb. Up to us to provide a solution and to reduce 
the risks of technical balkanisation.

jfc 

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:48:27 +0200

> Here is the link to the statement of Mr. Gallagher:

Somebody else could serve as IANA, we already discussed this.

IIRC it was you who wanted the RfC 2860 MoU as "normative"
for some finer points of the appeal procedures.
 
> From two mails I received, I realise that this may be a
> shock to some

Their own format ".net" suicide shocked me more.  But that's
strictly off topic, unless you have new ideas about RfC 2860.

                           Bye, Frank

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 02:01:08 +0200

>strictly off topic, unless you have new ideas about RfC 2860.

Hi! Frank,
RFC 2860 bis is under general discussion with Brian Carpenter discussing it 
and a Draft from John Klensin. The real issue is now to know if we are 
going to have at IANA level a contention similar to the "alt-roots" with 
USA, China, Europe, etc. playing alt-IANA. Obviously not as simple as that. 
But this is roughly what we all want to avoid. Already complex enough with 
192 States, 260 TLDs, no need at this stage to add confusion with 7500 
languages.

The problem is that everyone including WGIG, USA, IEFT think in terms of an 
old "mono" architecture asking features that only a non tested or even 
investigated "multi" architecture could deliver. WGIG has not identified 
the problem and forced the USA to move, before they announce their 
conclusions. USA have identified the problem and do not know who is going 
to technically address it (IETF, ITU, DoD, Open Sources?) from what they 
officialy say.

In this perspective, RFC 2860 de facto does not exist anymore. Its 
legitimacy is based upon the White Book and the IANA contract. RFC 2860 
could be replaced by an ISOC (IASA) co-operative agreement with the USG or 
any other agreement. There is an audit of the ICANN contract by the General 
Accounting Office which question many things in case of change.

The USA have clarified the back-ground and underlined the problem they see. 
This is great. But this does not mean that their choices are the good one 
(I tend to think some are imposed by the lacks of the technology, and 
others by protectionism). Our job is to see how we can best support people.
jfc

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:57:40 +0200

r&d afrac wrote:

> RFC 2860 bis is under general discussion with Brian Carpenter
> discussing it and a Draft from John Klensin.

Yes, I read the IETF general list, and I've John's draft in my
"collection" <http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/>  It's not about
finding a new hoster for the IANA, it's about the definition of
"IESG approval".  Perfectly irrelevant for LTRU, it was always
clear that there's no way to bypass the "language tag review"
step in our procedure.  You can't send a registration request
directly to the IESG - that's the problem they had with this
obscure IPv6 hop-by-hop option, if I understood this correctly.

> The real issue is now to know if we are going to have at IANA
> level a contention similar to the "alt-roots" with USA,
> China, Europe, etc. playing alt-IANA.

For the moment IANA is what the IETF says it is.  And for the
moment ns1.de.eu.orsn.net mirrors ICANN's servers, or at least
that's what I think it does.

> no need at this stage to add confusion with 7500 languages.

I like the idea.  But it will be 3066ter, Peter can't register
them manually one after the other.  3066ter will simply offer a
bulk registry update, add ISO 639-3 to the registry maybe after
filtering any dupes.  No confusion.

> RFC 2860 de facto does not exist anymore.

Fine, then let's delete it from the references.  The last time
I proposed this you didn't like it.  Only an "informative" MoU,
good riddance from our "normative" references.

> Our job is to see how we can best support people.

Reinventing ICANN isn't covered by our WG Charter, we're here
to define a registry format, not the hoster of this registry.
And as far as I'm concerned that job is finished.  Bye, Frank

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 04:28:43 +0200

I am afraid you miss the point. There is _no_more_ IANA. The IANA you 
consider was a registry/document repository for the whole network. Due to 
the growth of the network the USA contracted to give it to the Global 
Intenet Community: RFC 2860 and the work of this WG (which is to define a 
IANA Registry) are based on that. This contract will not be continued.

RFC 2860 and this Draft must now consider what is their purpose: to support 
the Global community or to serve the USA through its national reference 
center and to deal with the constraints/advantages this may represent.
jfc

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 04:47:56 +0200

r&d afrac wrote:

> I am afraid you miss the point. There is _no_more_ IANA.

I've no problem with <http://www.iana.org> - alive and kicking.
It's also still the same link from <http://www.ietf.org>.  Bye.