preserving unity within lingual and technical diversity

["JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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 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:

1. the IESG to respect the RFC 3066 Bis consensus.
2. the IETF to work on the internationalisation and multilingualisation layers.
3. all of us to engage in a debate about the deprecation of the old loyal root server system.
4. work on multi-authoritative issues through intrinsic support, and not as mono-authoritative options.

jfc

_______________________________________________

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