some pending IASA issues

I would like to rise a few points IRT the IASA effort. Keeping in mind that 
Members will have to adopt it and the world to trust it.
1. Transparence is of the essence: I would advise the Transition Team 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/adminrest/transteam page to be linked on the 
http://ietf.org main page. Important information such as the bios of the 
members (including corporate relations and geographical area) are missing. 
The http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-05.txt current 
draft should be linked there.
2. ISOC is an international organization, yet there is no indication about 
relations with ISOC local chapters. For organizing local IETF lists, 
assisting with IETF meetings, documenting specific local issues when 
requested, encouraging regional workshops, meetings, shows, publications. 
This should  be noted in a short paragraph to acknowledge national/regional 
contributions and support and to leave open any further 
suggestion/development. Cost: 3lines to be added.
3. Regional representation. Most of the Internet organizations make sure 
their BoD is regionally distributed. This is not appropriate for a 
technical entity, however IAOC is an administrative body. I would suggest 
the Draft Section 4 to include a recommendation (not an obligation) that 
all the main parts of the world are represented at the IAOC. Cost: 2 lines 
to be added.
4. multilingualism. There is no provision for Secretariat and Editor 
translations services, nor for the IAD command of languages. This is 
surprising in a 7260 languages world. I do not say the IAD is to speak many 
languages nor that publications are to be translated. But I definitely say 
that this question must be addressed with a policy statement. This 
statement could be that at the present time the multilingualism issue is 
not addressed, but should be included in a further global review of the 
Internet standard process to support a Multilingual Internet. Cost: 3 lines 
to be added.
5. stability/accountability. As long as decisions by the IAD can be 
questioned by anyone else than the IAOC and the IAOC may be accountable for 
its decisions one by one rather than for the respect of received 
directions, this will be subjective with an important risk of confusion. I 
suppose that O'Reilly may start publishing "ORCs" from the Drafts and the 
Internet may survive if the IETF is blocked by IASA-DoS? But is that what 
we want?
6. The IAD is supposed to be a solitary job. Has anyone considered : "I am 
the IAD, let me understand my job and organize my calendar. Even with 48 
hours non stop a day, can I carry it all?". I feel there is a few points 
which are missing. For example, how can he ask guidance to the IETF, IAB or 
IESG? Is the guy entitled to vacations? What if he is sick: is a 
replacement to be hired? There are cost of life, salary level, productivity 
comparative tables. Did we consider them, when deciding where the IAD is to 
seat?
7. IANA management. Right now the IANA support is delegated to ICANN by 
IETF (RFC 2860) on one hand, and by the USG on another hand, 
http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-09feb00.htm. This last contract 
is questioned by the USGAO http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf and by 
other Govs on the same grounds. ICANN for some times tries to force another 
view which is "the IANA is an ICANN function". This might be a solution, 
but it should be worked on and warranties given.
The Internet can function without the IETF? not without the IANA. The legal 
situation of the IANA, its relations with the IASA, its situation in the 
case the USG contract is not renewed (as announced), in the case some of 
its main users ask the ITU to take over its functions as a (contingency?) 
plan, are important points. As the proposed RFC 3066bis draft issue shown 
it, we have IANA related issues to solve over multilingualism support, the 
intended propositions create but do not address.
The ICANN ICP-3 document http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-3.htm called for an 
experimentation of the DNS evolution. This could have lead to a debate over 
the Internet evolution. We followed on the ICANN request and found a need 
and an evolution towards a concerted distribution of the IANA function and 
the need of its intergovernance. This is only a private vision, there 
should be others to be debated by now. The market evolution runs ahead: our 
work, the market, the tensions over the uncomplete RFC 3066bis draft, the 
signals received through the WSIS, etc. show the IANA will probably a major 
issue in the coming years. The IASA proposition should build a stable, 
clear, politically independent IANA support, to help such a debate.
jfc








_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf