Subject: Multinational Internet or Balkanization?

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 01:28:43 +0100

http://english.people.com.cn/200602/28/eng20060228_246712.html
http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=10411&slug=INTERNET-POLICY-MII-DOMAIN%20NAME-DNS 

http://www.domainesinfo.fr/vie_extensions.php?vde_id=859
http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/06/02/28/1610242.shtml
Please look at the press tonight and tomorrow....

The Chinese Names were with us for a couple of years. But they are 
now fully disclosed. The result raise a question. Is the IETF to:

- continue considering that globalization (internationalization of 
the Internet + localization of the foreign end) is its only doctrine, 
recently embodied by RFC 3066 Bis, that the Internet architecture 
must keep adding constraints over constraints to protect it, that 
such Chinese Names are an alt-root balkanization?

- accept that there is an Internationalised US ASCII Internet decided 
by the US Congress, that there is an emerging Chinese Internet 
decided by the Chinese law; that there will be many other lingual and 
lateral internets decided by Govs, Corporations, empowered languages, 
Communities, users grassroots efforts; that their interoperable 
harmonization forms the Multilingual Internet; and that the ITEF 
architecture must be revisited to support them all as a single system?

And the next question: should-not ICANN act accordingly? RFC 3935 
says that the mission of the IETF is to influence the way people 
design, use and manage the Internet. The MoU with ICANN gives it IANA 
responsibility over names and numbers management. But here we face a 
fundamental architectural issue. Should it be left to an organization 
aiming at fostering competition in selling ASCII domain names and 
mudded in IDNs?
jfc

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:49:24 -0800

I think we relax, go to the bar and have a drink.

These questions will sort themselves out. There is no conflict or
ambiguity unless ICANN decides to issue the same TLDs.

MIT could decide to add an j key to their telephones and issue people
complex numbers for use in internal calls. This would cause no
difficulty whatsoever to the rest of the telephone system. The folk at
MIT would be smart enough to work out that they need a second number
that is a positive integer to accept calls from the rest of the world.

		Phill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 7:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Multinational Internet or Balkanization?
> 
> The Chinese Names were with us for a couple of years. But 
> they are now fully disclosed. The result raise a question. Is 
> the IETF to:
> 
> - continue considering that globalization 
> (internationalization of the Internet + localization of the 
> foreign end) is its only doctrine, recently embodied by RFC 
> 3066 Bis, that the Internet architecture must keep adding 
> constraints over constraints to protect it, that such Chinese 
> Names are an alt-root balkanization?
> 
> - accept that there is an Internationalised US ASCII Internet 
> decided by the US Congress, that there is an emerging Chinese 
> Internet decided by the Chinese law; that there will be many 
> other lingual and lateral internets decided by Govs, 
> Corporations, empowered languages, Communities, users 
> grassroots efforts; that their interoperable harmonization 
> forms the Multilingual Internet; and that the ITEF 
> And the next question: should-not ICANN act accordingly? RFC 
> 3935 says that the mission of the IETF is to influence the 
> way people design, use and manage the Internet. The MoU with 
> ICANN gives it IANA responsibility over names and numbers 
> management. But here we face a fundamental architectural 
> issue. Should it be left to an organization aiming at 
> fostering competition in selling ASCII domain names and 
> mudded in IDNs?
> jfc
> 
> 
>