Re: ISOC/IETF *ARE* International Bodies[was: PAB nIANA facts]

[Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]>]

Dave;

> >Masataka Ohta wrote:
> >> The next thing to do is to make ISOC/IETF internationalized
> >> standardization body like ITU or ISO.
> ...
> >ISOC and IETF are already [and always have been]
> >international bodies!!
> 
> For some people, the term "international" refers to "between nations" as in
> requiring treaties and the like.  That is, the word is a formal term of art
> and they do not like having it used in other ways.

Here, it's enough to say that decisions made by USG or some
organization solely operated by people under US legislation
are US-local, not international, decisions.

> The IAHC originally was
> tasked to work on iTLDs, where the 'i' meant internaional.  This point of
> sensitivity about the word was why we changed to 'generic'.

IAHC was not thoroughly international, but it successfully drafted a
truly international framework of POC/PAB/CORE.

> Similarly, the IETF has considerable global standing, but it is not a formal
> treaty organization.

IETF and World Series of baseball games are, in some sense, global.

							Masataka Ohta