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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf