Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050704013531.04772090@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 02:01:08 +0200
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, ltru@ietf.org
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: NTIA Statement of Principles
In-Reply-To: <42C832FB.4E58@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050703164412.041fcb00@mail.jefsey.com>
	<42C832FB.4E58@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 20:48 03/07/2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>r&d afrac wrote:
>
> > 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.

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



   


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru