Re: IANA SLA Input Sought

> > > > Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> > > > > Who does or will pay for the IANA function?  Does funding come 
> > > > > from IASA, ICANN, or some other source?
> > > > Ray Pelletier wrote:
> > > > To my knowledge, it's ICANN, not the IETF.
> > > > Ray
> > > Brian E Carpenter wrote
> > > Yes, this has been an ICANN contribution to the community since
> > > the creation of ICANN, when these functions were transferred from
> > > their previous home at ISI.
> > Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> > Note: I think we need to define IETF requirements and get them 
> > filled, and that this process is one way of achieving that.
> > If we find that ICANN isn't willing or able to do what we desire 
> > from them, we need to go somewhere else for running registries - at 
> > least new ones, and possibly old ones too. (There are some old ones 
> > with thorny issues attached to them, but new ones don't have that.)
> > So ICANN doing this "for free" does not mean that we don't get to 
> > say how the job is done.
> At 14:54 28/06/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Indeed, and I would like to underline that the current IANA Manager
> over at ICANN, David Conrad, has been working very closely with
> us in drafting this SLA. So it isn't based on wishful thinking.
Dear Brian,
I doubt Harald here makes wishful thinking either.
Let get real, please.

Dear Harald,
thank you for publicly disclosing what I explained and documented for 
18 months as your probable agenda. This makes plain why you and your 
affinity group attempted to exclude, block, and discredit me, and my 
organisation's MDRS work, for 18 months. This is also the reason for 
my own weak to strong winning strategy.
We both know that the issue is the control, the fragmentation, or the 
evolution of the IANA. Interestingly, this comes only three weeks 
before the NTIA hearings. Pressures given, taken, or both?
I documented most of the point in an email yesterday, which had a 
certain audience outside of the IETF.
However, now that you start speaking more openly, I believe we can 
also start discussing more openly how to prevent a split between the 
Internationalized US Internet and the Multilingual Internet of the 
rest of the world. This is why I proposed an open "concertation 
meeting" (sorry, an "en-EU" term) on the issue for the first week of 
October in Paris. I will formalise the invitation and a proposed 
agenda in a few weeks.
The technical situation is as follows (everyone will understand the 
underlying political and commercial situation):
1. when you speak of "at least new [registry] ones" you mean 
"Language Subtags and Extension Registries". Your 
ietf-languages(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no mailing list still controls "how the job 
is done" today. However, RFC 3066 Bis gives that control to 
ietf-languages(_at_)iana(_dot_)org(_dot_) Even with the IESG long appeal delays, I am 
confident that I will get RFC 3066 Bis applied one way or another.
2. The BCP 47 first part (RFC 3066 Bis) and second part (under IESG 
approval) organise a potentially enormous computer load on these 
registries (larger than the entire DNS). The WG-LTRU stubbornly 
refused to consider it (as well as who would bear the cost). Some WG 
and your list Members explained that - should it occur - it would be 
supported as the other Unicode registries, by Unicode Members' 
servers. An other one stated that one sentence in the BCP 47 second 
part Draft would prevent it, and an other alluded to a dedicated ISO 
639 [paid?] server being under consideration. I have no reason to 
believe that when you (a BoD Member of Unicode) speak of "somewhere 
else", you did not ran a prior investigation (there are only a few 
possible "somewhere" locations for such an hosting). May be could you 
share the estimates with us?
3. Randy Preshun said that when BCP 47 documents are finished (now) 
we would consider the WG-LTRU "thorny issues". I see that this is the 
time. I made ISO 11179 to be currently discussed again at the WG, and 
you introduce now the idea of an IANA transfer outside of ICANN. 
These are the two serious alternatives to a IANA status quo that a 
simple library, or search engine application can blow-up at any 
moment. They are between a unilateral, IANA centric, 
internationalized Internet and a multilateral, user centric, 
multilingual, multitechnology, internetting architecture.
Due to the ICANN SLA, the IETF cannot now largely delay (as it does 
for my appeals which ask the same question) its choice between:
Plan A. ICANN (USG agency as per the Tunis agreement) receives 
control of the new IETF-claimed world leadership on languages issues. 
This is/will obviously be contested by many. All of us also know 
(from the very beginning) that it will not bear the load anyone can 
generate through Language libraries.
PLAN B. the IETF believes that its job is to help people to build and 
operate distributed communications solutions and services, over their 
common digital ecosystem and devise an architecture for them to do 
so, as I do with the MDRS (multilingual distributed registry system). 
I sincerely hope that we can work together on the resulting challenge 
for the benefit of the Internet and its users.
Plan C. Unicode Members' servers (IBM, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, 
etc.) support a core solution using the CLDR locales files as its 
"meta user agents". This can certainly work. However, we must understand that:
1. the CLDR limitations (and Search Servers economics) realistically 
limit the number of supported languages to 150, to the use English as 
a pivotal language, and make the other 7,500 ISO 639-3 languages, 
20,000 ISO 639-6 languages, and billions of specialised socio, 
professional, and idiolects subject to the BCP 47 part 2 Filtering 
(cultural kill). All of this along with the economic, political, and 
societal consequences that one can expect.
2. the operators of the Language Registries will obtain immense 
intelligence on every user ("tell me what you read, I will tell you 
who you are"). It is likely that this will lead to IANA fragmentation 
for foreign user protection. We also know how it will be used by the 
two-tier Internet.
3. the lack of technical support of so many language issues, which 
the WG-LTRU refused to consider, makes this limited to only some HTML 
and XML needs.
4. this will obviously not prevent the plan B Multilingual Internet 
from developing, especially now that I have obtained the current BCP 
47 text and in the IGF context.
If I am wrong in the way I read you, I apologise. If I am right I beg 
you not to split the Internet.
All the  best.
jfc



jfc

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