[discuss] [Internetgovtech] an initial proposal wrt IANA developments
jefsey at jefsey.com
Sat Mar 22 15:58:24 UTC 2014
for historic reasons, the NTIA/DoC/USG's vision of the internet, i.e.
their virtual global network information center (INTERNIC), has
prevailed in coordinating an accepted convenient reduction of the
Internet capacities (particularly in the naming area) where:
- the "US ccTLD" was the "elder" of the family
- was organized by its government as "ICANN",
- that other national ccTLDs joined in the ICANN/GAC to assist it in
coordinating the DNS and the IP addressing plan.
The NTIA retirement not only removes the USG historic participation,
but it also calls for the same retirement by all the other
Governments. The NTIA precludes to be replaced by any governmental
organization. This is a complete change in the 36 year old nature of
the international packet switch naming and addressing spaces. The
IETF cannot do anything about it as it is not in the business of
deciding who is a State, who is the political authority over a ccTLD,
and who can delegate (ICANN or other) national address sets if such a
We, therefore, are in a situation where the "minority leader" (US),
which assumed responsibility until now, quits in refusing the
successor that the majority has decided on. Dubai WCIT is supported
by nations covering 3.8 billion people, while the non-signatories
cover 2.6 billion, and .6 billon had to technically abstain. This is
a democratic, market, and political fact that the IETF cannot oppose,
but has to consider in order to get it technically addressed. IETF,
IAB, ISOC, W3C, and IEEE and IETF, IAB, ISOC, W3C, RIRs, and ICANN
have committed to positions that give leadership either to economical
and/or political decisions that informed users from the Libre,
Institutional and Competitive sectors (IUsers) and other affected
parties have not, so far, published that they had understood, or
approved. I appealed them, allowing me to appeal to ISOC, what I
would not prefer to do as long as other possibilities of consensus
have not been proposed, studied, and exhausted.
The situation which is likely to develop is the situation that the
NTIA's strategy has tried to prevent for 30 years, because it
reflects the reality of the world's diversity independence from US
interests. This means a multiple class DNS and ISO 3166 structured
IPv6 addressing plan and registries. The question is, therefore, who
is to provide the necessary documentation, for this to happen in good
order, knowing that:
- this documentation should be public domain, i.e. not under IETF
Trust Copyright and with the capacity to impeach derivative work.
- it is very simple to organize from ISO 3166.
- neither the NTIA nor the multitude will accept it to be published
by a governmental multilateral body, what ISO is not.
ICANN, being a member of the ISO 3166/MA (Maintenance Agency), I suggest that:
- the necessary documents of reference are written and maintained as
a new work intended proposal (NWIP) by this maintenance agency. Such
an NWIP could be introduced by ANSI and written by ICANN. It would
then be subject to the vote of every nation in terms of participation
- every affected party (IETF, ICANN, Govs, private sector
organizations, JTC1, ITU, civil society organization, the multitude
of persons) could then send the ISO 3166/MA recommendations and
suggest members for an advisory panel to review and consolidate them.
The NWIP could determine the rules governing the selection process of
such a panel in such a way that a full MS approach is respected
including the Public, Private, Civil, Libre, Technical, and Academic sector.
- the maintenance of this list could be assumed within the DNSA
framework under the supervision of the ISO 3166/MA agency in order to
provide good reactivity and permit a permanent MS multilogue under
the auspices of the independent non-Governmental normative leading
agency whose standard has ensured the international stability of the
international data services since their very inception in full
coherence with the whole global standardization process.
I note that if the post-NTIA transition is not seamless and this
scheme has not been explored, documented and engaged by an
IETF/ICANN/DNSA working group, responsibility will lie with IETF and/or ICANN.
More information about the discuss