At 23:47 30/09/2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I have had discussions with parties who are fully aware of the
difference between ICANN and the IETF and it is clear they want to
take over both.
the monolingual/etc. Internet is the adherence to the RFCs supported
by the IANA and structured by the RIRs IP addresses. The multilingual
(and probably many other multi aspects) Internet is also the
"language root" a close limited version of which just finished its
EISG LC. The control of the langroot is assumed by the
ietf-languages(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no mailing list.
As for the other "roots" (name and address spaces) the langroot can
be (de)centrally controlled or distributed. Being only concerned by
IETF deliverable user QA, I want, for them three, sure, stable,
secure and innovation oriented distributed solutions. I many times
explained why, to the dislike of some. For historic reasons this is
not true for the name and address spaces: this is what the WSIS tries
RFC 3066 Bis organises the centralisation of the langroot. So, it may
fall under either an MoU between EITF and Unicode (probably leading
to an internal competition of influence between solution and service
providers), either the Library of Congress, either UNESCO or possibly
a surviving ICANN. Due to the European position we eventually
obtained, a solution like UNESCO would be more likely.
The global management of IANA registries in a WSIS context will
probably be ISO 11179 compliant (we name it the DRS for "distributed
registry system"). This will remove a lot of direct involvement to
IETF in three key areas. It is too early to have a vision of a
correct IETF position. The first move is obviously an ISO 1179
compliant langroot, to protect its independance from commercial,
political and UN interests without a serious open user control. I
said it was my priority.
Ietf mailing list