Subject: preserving unity within lingual and technical diversity

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 03:24:50 +0200

The way in which the IDNs are (not) supported and the resulting 
increase of other local and lingual naming solutions (keywords, 
aliases, externets, such as China) lead to the idea that in the near 
future the adopted name resolutions solutions with the largest 
development potential will not use data that are obtained from the 
root server system (RSS).

Without considering political orientation, many indications are going 
into that direction.
    * keywords have demonstrated uniqueness in name and destination 
is not necessary for predictability.
    * its seems that the impact of typos on new longer and 
diversified TLD has not been considered.
    * the complexity of schemes reversing the level order may allow 
for new systems
    * the WIPO position, not to address ACE cybersquatting, may call 
for new solutions.
    * different "patch" level for ISPs; for keywords, foreign names, 
and aliases – with private strategies
    * two/tiers internet various solutions
    * the probable use of OPES/ONES (OPES coordinated networks) 
solutions in naming.
    * the lack of flexibility of a global RSS to address local 
situations and demands;
    * Justice and intelligence protection calling for local logs.
    * anti-pharming protection
    * individual nameservers with full local root capacity
    * low number of root file updates
    * etc.
I have observed that many problems could be solved or would be easier 
to solve - either directly or due to the necessary replacement 
practices - if the root server system was deprecated. The RSS helped 
in the maintenance and development of a naming stability culture. 
Nevertheless, it now seems [when the Internet must deliver what it 
was not designed for] to be fighting against its purpose. My 
conclusion may be wrong, but I think a debate is necessary.

US interests are to be protected: this is achieved by the 
<ftp://rs.internet.net/>ftp://rs.internet.net file as the NTIA 
authoritative file for the Internationalised US Internet agreed in 
Tunis. However, others would like their interests to also be 
respected. If the rigidity of the system leads to conflict, we will 
arrive at network fragmentation.

I had a difficult time (IDNA and RFC 3066 Bis) ensuring that there 
would be some possible interoperability maintained between the 
Internationalised US Internet and the Multilingual International 
Network, even if most of those at the IETF do not see the differences 
between these two systems. IMHO now is the last chance that we have 
to avoid a split instead of a single Multilingual Internet. Let 
consider that in a global network, we all are bound together. There 
is no win/lose situation. There are only win/win and lose/lose ones.

I am certain that most Multilingual Internet projects will be ready 
to cooperate with an IETF/ICANN effort and will seriously consider 
them. I have pled for years for an ITU-I interface for the 
Intelligent Networks needs with the ITU. I also propose the creation 
of an IGFTF entity in order to welcome the IGF concerns and ethic 
within the Internet standard process.

Therefore, I will have an attempt once more, at least for the 
records. Calling for:
    * the IESG to respect the RFC 3066 Bis consensus.
    * the IETF to work on the internationalisation and 
multilingualisation layers.
    * all of us to engage in a debate about the deprecation of the 
old loyal root server system.
    * work on multi-authoritative issues through intrinsic support, 
and not as mono-authoritative options.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf