NICSOhttp://nicso.org

PROPOSITIONSPROPOSITIONSTO TEAM WITH IAB/IETF OVERTO TEAM WITH IAB/IETF OVER

THE INTERNET STANDARD PROCESSTHE INTERNET STANDARD PROCESS

Jean-François C. (Jefsey) MorfindotDJ

jefsey@jefsey.com

NICSONICSO

INTLNET was created in 1978 to assist the deployment of the International Network

In 2002-2003 it organised and documented the dot-root test bed along with the ICANN ICP-3 guidelines

This lead to the creation of different projects including the NICSO as an intergovernance think-tank towards ccTLDs, National Internet Communities (@large) and Governments.

THIS PRESENTATIONTHIS PRESENTATION

What we observe:

The INTERNET does change ccTLDs are involved US Statement of Principles

What we are suggested:

ICANN ICP-3 IAB RFC 3869 dot-root experimentation IETF Chair and Internet Standard Process

What we can do:

Our practical needs Propositions Enacting them : IETF ccTLD Draft

THE INTERNET DOES CHANGETHE INTERNET DOES CHANGE

We all see that the Internet does change:

a world infrastructure, Internet Governance, convergence Online power and capacity of standard users are equivalent

to a national community of ten years ago Users are becoming the main standardisation source

This will impact the ccTLDs unchanged offers

Privacy issues over WHOIS, alternative QUIEST Root maintenance http://nicso/intlfile.txt PADs (Private Alias Directory: individual multilingual root) Independent multilingualism and cultural exception (WTO)

ccTLDs ARE INVOLVEDccTLDs ARE INVOLVED

New services: who will provide them?

RFC 1591: ccTLD Managers are the trustees for their National Internet Community they have the duty to serve.

Governments concerns are increasing

WSIS: Governments are invited to:

i) facilitate the establishment of national and regional Internet Exchange Centres;

i) manage or supervise, as appropriate, their respective country code top-level domain name (ccTLD);

ii) promote awareness of the Internet.

Millennium Development Goals (MDG)

US Statement of PrinciplesUS Statement of Principles

a country national security, economy, cultural, societal and citizenlives support cannot depend on foreign DNS services:

Governments have legitimate interest in the management of their country code top level domains (ccTLD). 

The United States recognizes that governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD. 

As such, the United States is committed to working with the international community to address these concerns, bearing in mind the fundamental need to ensure stability and security of the Internet’s DNS.

ICANN ICP-3ICANN ICP-3

“Experimentation has always been an essential component of the Internet's vitality.” “Working within the system does not preclude experimentation, including experimentation with alternate DNS roots.”

“It should be noted that the original design of the DNS provides a facility for future extensions that accommodates the possibility of safely deploying multiple roots on the public Internet for experimental and other purposes.”

“In an ever-evolving Internet, ultimately there may be better architectures for getting the job done where the need for a single, authoritative root will not be an issue.”

ICANN EXPERIMENTATION CRITERIAICANN EXPERIMENTATION CRITERIA

“Experiments, however, almost by definition have certain characteristics to avoid harm:

they are clearly labeled as experiments,

it is well understood that these experiments may end without establishing any prior claims on future directions,

they are appropriately coordinated within a community-based framework (such as the IETF )

the experimenters commit to adapt to consensus-based standards when they emerge through the ICANN and other community-based processes.

experimental operations involving alternate DNS roots must be conducted in a controlled manner, so that they do not adversely affect those who have not consented to participate in them”

IAB RFC 3869IAB RFC 3869

“if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.”

Need of public and non-profit efforts Priorities

DNS and new naming systems Routing Security (key management) Network management, monitoring and reporting Quality of Services Meeting the needs of the future Freely distributable prototypes

DOT-ROOT EXPERIMENTATIONDOT-ROOT EXPERIMENTATION

National security calls for DNS dysfunctions risk containment, in particular over critical infrastructures

Need of national control on the used root in case of national emergency/catastrophe or conflicts

Intelligence leaks and law enforcement call for a national DNS archives control: support of spaces of trust and of competitive regalian services

Local culture empowerment: end to end operability must support person to person interintelligibility and even community into community interculturation.

Common Reference Centres (CRC) are the communities parameter/common data repositories.

THE IETF CHAIRTHE IETF CHAIR

invited to liaise with ccTLDs, the IETF Chair says: “liaison and IANA policy is the business of the IAB, so I have consulted

with IAB Chair.”

“The IETF does have a technical liaison to ICANN. We avoid taking positions on policy issues except if we see a clear technical danger. At the moment, we don't see that a liaison channel between the IETF and the ccTLD community is needed.”

“If there is a need for technical guidelines, that might well be a valid IETF topic - but the entry point for new technical work in the IETF is, as always, via the appropriate Area Directors.”

It is up to us to dialog in the IETF way: the Internet Standard process.

THE INTERNET STANDARD PROCESSTHE INTERNET STANDARD PROCESShow does it works?how does it works?

There is a need

It must be presented to an IETF Area Director As a question to an existing WG As a Charter for a new WG (IESG approved, IAB reviewed)

A comment is to be made on the response during the “Last Call” period or when requested (IESG,WG)

The response approved by the IESG it is published by the RFC Editor as an RFC:

For information Best Common Practices (it stabilises what users do) In the Standard track: it standardises a new solution

OUR PRACTICAL NEEDSOUR PRACTICAL NEEDS

To discuss and define our needsin our own way

To describe them to the IETF/IAB in their own way

To experiment their responsestowards:Running codesStructured and updated Documentation

(4200 RFCs!)

PROPOSITIONPROPOSITION

an international network task force (INTF)

(as there is one to help the deployment of IPv6)

To collect the need in terms of services (open forum) To translate them into IETF Charters To comments the IETF propositions To document the responses as a User/Programmer Guide with a

tested running code suite by :

A Global Internet Community Test-Bed (UNITRY) Gathering voluntary resources and teams Network oriented Generic Open Source solutions

INTERNATIONAL NETWORK TFINTERNATIONAL NETWORK TF

INTF.ORG general sitea secretariat to serve mailing lists

http://specialised.intf.org sites: for everyone to share on an equal origin and linguistic opportunity basis – public sponsoring and non-profit welcome

One shot Documentation: a Table of Content:An organised set of specialised sites to document: the proposed charters (IETF and other SDOs) the responses received the running codesfor developers and users – multilingual – link on NIC sites

UNITRYUNITRY

A voluntary team and resource subscription to a mailbox/site – mailing lists – secretariat

http://specialised.unitry.org sites: per teams of resources per projects

Open Propositions of Projects Anyone can propose a project on an equal opportunity basis

multitechnologies

Exposure and Recognition of participants Press information organised

NETWORK SUITESNETWORK SUITES

To provide stabilised documented code

Interoperable and tested

For a complete SNHN management systemSmall/Standalone Network/Home Network

focusing on a user-centric approach Millennium Development Goals Multimedia convergence Open to users innovation IPv6 deployment

IETF DRAFTIETF DRAFT

The best way to establish this proposition is topublish it as an IETF Draft towards a BCPThis presentation is a part of that process

Five authors are allowed:suggested ICANN, IAB, IETF, INTF and UNITRY?

The acknowledgments partlists all the contributors: once a Draft is published a mailing list is created to discuss it, please participate

It should be ready by Septemberto share in the WSIS Momentum

THANK YOUTHANK YOUFOR YOUR ATTENTIONFOR YOUR ATTENTION

http://intf.org/lux.ppthttp://intf.org/lux.ppt