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

[herve baudouy <[e-mail]>]

unsubscribe

Masataka Ohta wrote:

> 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