Re: [iucg] [happiana] New Version Notification for draft-leiba-iana-policy-update-00.txt

[JFC Morfin <[e-mail]>]

At 18:53 29/09/2011, Larry Masinter wrote:
>Comment on draft-leiba-iana-policy-update:
>
>I think it's awkward to try to update BCP 26 (RFC 5226) with a 
>separate stand-alone document.  Why not just produce an updated 5226?
>
>(In which case, the discussion below WOULD be in scope, although I 
>agree it isn't now.)

The WG/LTRU case resulted from a conjunction of different commercial, 
political and strategic biases (as documented in RFC 3869) of real 
magnitude. It only is interesting here due to the  experience it 
represented and by its lessons.

It taught me (at least) that the IANA had to be:
- protected by openness against bias and capture
- at the proper level of user requirement, i.e. multilingual
- at the proper level of architectural evolution, i.e. interusable

The IANA does not meet these requirements today. There are two 
possible scenarii which are similar to its DNS support and 
foreseeable evolution.
- either as the Internet registry of a referential galaxy, hence 
conforming to the rules of such a galaxy.
- or as the Internet source of metadata that will be mixed by 
MataData referent services (MDRS) providers.

Further inputs on this, the Lee Gillam proposition (ISO 11179), the 
governmental and industry level international implications (the IETF 
weak to strong consensus I obtained [against me] was only a simple 
part of the story), the real target, the risks for the IETF, the 
present MDRS related concerns, etc. would need a reporting I_D of 
mine on the matter. Not about the past, but about the today similar 
and more extended risks and alternatives.

I will try to write such an I_D in the coming weeks. Because the 
decision about the IANA's future necessarily lays on this list.
Best
jfc