Re: [ga] More comments on IANA language tables

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jefsey,

Thank you for your remarks and the pointer to John
Klensin's latest RFC.  One of his observations I found
to be particularly noteworthy:

3.2.  Issues that fall within the purview of ICANN

3.2.1.  Dispute resolution

   IDN creates new types of collisions between
trademarks and domain names as well as collisions
between domain names.  This have impact on dispute
resolution processes used by registries and otherwise.
 It is important that deployment of IDN evolve in
parallel with review and updating of ICANN or
registry-specific dispute resolution processes.




--- "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> At 18:40 13/12/2005, Danny Younger wrote:
> >perhaps Jefsey, who now sits on the Board of MINC,
> can
> >comment further on the future roll-out of IDNs...
> 
> Dear Danny,
> an organization is represented by its Chair. Khaled
> Fattal belongs to 
> the ICANN advisory committee on IDN. He has recently
> published a 
> letter you quoted. I have forwarded him your mail.
> 
> What follows is my MINC hat off.
> 
> The IANA is the clearinghouse of the "legacy
> internet". This system 
> is American, controlled by American interests for
> American users, 
> paid by the American tax payer, defined by the 47
> USC 230 (f)(1), 
> supported by the American IETF, governed by the
> AmerICANN. When a new 
> 2nd level like "kid.us" is created the Congress
> decides. When a new 
> TLD like ".xxx" is proposed, the White House
> decides. After 9/11 a 
> security review of the Internet said the Internet
> and its redesign 
> were critical for the US survival and the survival
> of its citizens. 
> That Internet is lingual: it supports the language,
> the script and 
> the culture of its American users. That Internet is
> late: it became 
> on the mid-90s the national datacoms system the USA
> did not deploy in 
> the mid-80s as France, Germany, UK, Japan, etc. due
> to the 
> deregulation and the AT&T split. Its technology is
> old, there is no 
> credible scheme to renew it and, to the contrary of
> every preceding 
> ITU technologies, it is US-ASCII English based.
> 
> It happens that I had to connect the Internet to the
> international 
> world, in 1984. So I know its particulars and
> limitations (RFC 920). 
> It was connected as a private network, using virtual
> lines under the 
> public international network system. When it
> developed with the Web, 
> due to the importance of the USA and the lack of
> gateway with the 
> other national networks, it was simpler for the
> national systems to 
> adopt the Internet TCP/IP technology rather than to
> maintain a dual 
> stack solution. Tunis has shown that the
> international evaluation of 
> the balance of cons and pros for so-doing has
> changed.
> 
> This Internet has three major problems.
> 
> 1. it extends abroad - where 90% of the people
> abroad are not English 
> mother tongue - while it should _relate_ with
> foreign systems.
> 
> 2. it uses the digital ecosystem of a world where
> 94,5% of the people 
> are not American citizens - so, it cannot conduct
> but _share_ into 
> the intergovernance of the governance of the related
> systems. That 
> intergovernance system must be found.
> 
> 3. it does not deliver the extended services
> (content [hence lingual] 
> oriented transport services) the USA and the world
> expect. This is 
> because its technology is delayed by an
> inappropriate IETF mission 
> definition: to "influence" those who "design, use
> and manage" a 
> unique Internet (RFC 3935) (I call mono-Internet),
> instead of serving 
> their needs.
> 
> This may be for "religious" reasons, for personal
> egos, or for short 
> term commercial interests (described by IAB RFC
> 3869), I do not care. 
> But, if we want to preserve a cross end to end
> compatibility (and not 
> an US end to Foreign end only - what is
> "Internationalization" about) 
> we need a "multi-Internet". Multilingualism is one
> of the aspects. 
> The WGIG shown it is true for Governances.
> Convergence shows it is 
> true for technologies.  Governments show it is true
> for 
> sovereignties. Danny Younger shows it is true for
> @large, etc.
> 
> IDN are an US Local DN solution. The IAB confirmed
> it a few days ago 
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-idn-nextsteps-00.txt.
> 
> It says "The term "multilingual" has many
> widely-varying definitions 
> and thus is not recommended for use in standards".
> They just do not 
> understand the need or do not want to address it.
> 
> The Chinese position (Chinese Names), the US recent
> position (US 
> Statement of Principles), EU position, etc. are
> logical efforts to 
> avoid the balkanization imposed that way by the IETF
> (Harald 
> Alvestrand's RFC 2277, 3066, 3935 and recent 3066
> bis avatar by 
> Unicode people). The Tunis "deal" will permit to
> clarify the 
> situation. We have five to ten years for the USA and
> the rest of the 
> world to become even. This will call for a lot of
> debates, ideas, 
> tests etc. In this we all have to help ICANN to
> address its share of 
> the problem, as much as to develop our's. We also
> must help the IETF 
> in removing from its debate the societal,
> economical, political 
> aspects of its technology: this is where we need to
> build an IGFTF to 
> interface the IGF concerns, the same as I plead for
> year for an ITU-I 
> to interface the ITU and the IGF/Internet world.
> 
> I note that the IETF and the ITU scopes are not
> opposing but 
> complementary. The Internet would not exist without
> telephone lines.
> But what a lot of time and opportunities wasted!
> 
> jfc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com