I have often been controverted due to my underlying vision of the
international nature of the internet. The new US position documents this
vision. It also confirms the most proper channels (ccTLDs as the trustees
of their national internet communities) to address its evolution. It also
puts the IETF under the competition of other fora.
I organised a two years long experimentation answering the ICANN ICP-3
call. It documented both the need (here expressed by the USA) and ways for
every nation to control its national naming and numbering spaces and of a
network intergovernance of the national/specialised/communities
governances. This is a universal need of surety and stability for the
national critical infrastructures, a competitive offer of regalian services
to their citizens, culture, languages and economy, of national Defence and
persons' security, privacy and legal protection. This should prevent
balkanisation, pulverisation and US dominance attempts. The suggestion of
the 18 months work of the exploratory non-profit we incporated, is to
proceed through an evolution of the core parameters of the Internet from
"mono" to "multi" (no competion over any space, but coexistence of multiple
spaces). There may be other propositions. Building on these experiences, I
would suggest we focus right now on three targets:
1. a doctrine to support national, lingual, social empowerments over shared
network virtual spaces (users can belong to a multiplicity of them)
(a) without endangering the global nature of the international network
("the networks within the network"), (b) extending the end-to end concept
to person-to-person (interintelligibility) and to community-to-community
(common life). The USA challenge us: if ain't broke, ... let build on it.
2. to preserve the IANA IETF part from national and cultural disputes.
ICANN relations with the USG result from the IANA contract
http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-09feb00.htm. The last thing we
need are national disputes over the IETF part (protocols) of the IANA due
to this. This is why I wasted so much time fighting RFC 3066 bis: every
Registry referring to ISO 3166 should be transferred into the ICANN/GAC
IANA area. Government, cultural, commercial issues are not the IETF
business. We want a distributed extended IANA, not 191 national anti-IANAs.
3. to establish a liaison between IETF and ccTLDs. I invited Brian
Carpenter to address the ccTLD Luxembourg meeting on this. He declined,
after consulting with Leslie Daigle. They saw no need for a liaison at this
stage while IETF already has liaisons with ICANN. Remarks: (a) There are
two liaisons: BoD (John Klensin), and technical: not manned. (b) ICANN has
no vocation to represent the ccTLDs but to relate with them.
However, Brian welcomed a direct technical dialogs, on an ad-hoc basis,
with the concerned ADs. At the present time ccTLDs cannot do that as a
community. I therefore studied the way for them to address Brian's demand.
I will present it on Sunday at the ccTLD meeting. My invitation to Brian
(or Leslie) holds: it would be a timely way to show the IETF is involved
and was ready.
This proposition, which meets the agreement and support of every concerned
party I met f2f, consists in (a) an open forum sponsored by ccTLDs where
every technical need, from bandwidth to lingual support, could be
introduced by their Managers (b) an independent multi-technology/multimode
(convergence) task force to translate it into coordinated technical specs,
to dialog with the IETF, W3C and other fora, and to keep updated an
internet developer/user guide (c) a running code experimentation and
validation community test-bed, along with the ICANN guidelines.
Comments and suggestions welcome.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf