[governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track

[jefsey]

At 19:50 30/05/2010, Avri Doria wrote:

>On 30 May 2010, at 12:28, JFC Morfin wrote:
>
> > could you please quote the reference of such technical and policy rules?
>
>for this i am relying on the ICANN:
>
>http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-implementation-plan-16nov09-en.pdf
>http://www.icann.org/topics/idn/idn-guidelines-26apr07.pdf
>http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idna-protocol-en.htm
>
>and on the gTLD side:
>http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf

These are not Internet, they are ICANN. This means there are no 
technical but pure political blabla, not endorsed by any open 
structure nor user representation.

>and on the IETF side the plethora of RFCs and soon to be RFCs

These are the serious stuff I was looking for. There currently are 
only four documents that might become RFCs (IDNA2008) and possible 
deliveries of WG/NEWPREP, WORKON/IDNA2010 and  WG/IDNABIS if it 
resumes its work with a new charter. Every other will be obsoleted by those.

In anycase I may be wrong, but I do not see how an Internet RFC could 
discriminate on the script basis, except RFC 4647 (and this has 
nothing to do with IDNs). This is because I do not see where the 
script information would come from?

> > To my knowledge at this architectural stage there is 
> _no_  technical rule that may legitimate _any_ policy rule.
>
>A longer issue.  Technical does not legitimate policy.  The relation 
>is much more complicated than that. There is an interplay and a give 
>and take between the definitions of what is possible (technical) and 
>what is allowed (policy).  This is one of my favorite academic 
>discussions, but this is neither the place nor the time.

hmmm... then I would be interested to know where you discuss it, 
because this certainly is a key issue in the coming negociation or 
conflict. Please not that I did not say it would justify, but that it 
might legitimate. This is because, as you know it if you want to 
allow something you must be in a position to forbide it. Something 
ICANN is not in a position to do, due to the interplay and give and 
take game between cons and pros to disobey/disregard ICANN for ccTLD 
and ULD/UTLDs (Users (top) level domains).

Actually time is changing. Open roots were the side-ICANN/IANA 
exception. Rigid ICANN TLDs are going to be the exception. This means 
that the ICANN DNS zones are going to deliver more to stay in 
business. ICANN was supposed to foster competition. They tried to 
fool the community in creating registrars, etc. within their supposed 
market monopoly based on their IANA centralised control. For years, 
industry has tried to gain control on IANA. They now have all the DoS 
tools for that in using languages. But at the same time they see that 
a blunt action could lead to a large grassroot trend, moving away 
from the IANA concept. So, it is wait and see.

> > As I documented it in my last post: this work is ahead. It takes 
> time and to get that time and necessary indications I use, as 
> documented a long ago, an appeal procedure to protect all of us 
> from the too nimble ICANN.
>
>And in this I am not brave enough to venture in the middle of your 
>discussions with the IETF/IESG/IAB on these issues. I watch them 
>with great fascination, but would not dare tread in the middle of th
>I am challenged sufficiently dealing with the issue from a 
>descriptive basis - what has been laid out by ICANN & IETF and 
>dealing with exegesis within those confines.

This is exactly what I do. But I do not care about what ICANN may 
have done for two good reasons.

1) this is obsoleted by IETF decisions and we need to know more from 
IETF (i.e. IAB) to understand up to which point IETF will follow and 
where Users have to take over.
2) ICANN propositions could be of interest (experience went into it) 
but in closed groups, confusing closeness and exclusive. No ICANN 
decision can have any legitimacy on third parties.

> > Rod Beckstrom's bullish political introduction of FAST TRACK 
> conflicts with that calendar. It will necessarily lead to conflicts 
> among and between Users and ICANN, probably initially ruled by 
> industry (that depends on the date ML-DNS is operationnaly supported).
>
>While there are lots of negative things I am willing to pin on Rod, 
>this absolute priority for getting IDN ccTLDs out now if not 2 years 
>ago, predated him and I expect there was little he could have done 
>to stem that inexorable rush to the root.

Let be candid: the 1983 root is no more.

It has evolved both in its real own operations and in its quite 
different use. ICANN was right in ICP-3. We ran and reported (French) 
a two years community test-bed along ICP-3 recommendations. FAST 
TRACK was a good idea along these lines (actually ICP-3 suggested the 
IETF to run the test-bed and IETF was never able/interested: ICANN 
runs FAST TRACK itself). However, FAST TRACK does not respect ICP-3 
requisites. I am afraid that Rod has not been explained enough to 
fully comprehend why his IDNA annoucements are good for ICANN and bad 
for the network. This is my concern: because he is obviously not told 
when/how to use his political advantage to best influence/negociate 
before it becomes a lack of credibility disadvantage.

ICANN does exist. Many people and interests need it to survive. Rod 
makes many to believe there is a common interest in ICANN survival: 
at some stage he will not be credible anymore due to the 
architectural and usage evolution those many will perceive (no idea 
when this can be - depends on how people/press will perceive it). 
Before he reach that time he must have negociated the ICANN survival 
outside of the DNSSEC dream (dream because DNS (better) security 
without DNSSEC might be the by then "no-ICANN killing app").

As far as I am concerned I cannot do more than I do to warn people 
than I am dangerous and to try to help against the revolution I read 
in the Internet architecture from its inception. During years no one 
cared. I have no idea when they change their mind. But since 
eventually IESG has approved my reading on a fundamental point, this 
may accelerate the understanding.

Best.
jfc

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t