RE: [ga] Clarification: "Ad Hoc Group"

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Bill Semich wrote:
> 
> My impression (gathered via osmosis in Santiago) was that 
> this ad hoc group
> would be looking at alternatives to the current IP addressing 
> scheme, in
> particular, addressing schemes of interest to European mobile phone
> providers, which would not be managed by the Regional Registries.
> 

I have not been in Santiago, and unfortunately didn't even have the time up
to now to check all the material, but I have the same impression.
In particular, I suspect that the "ad hoc" is kind of a compromise solution,
coming from the fact that the RIR's document has been accepted for ASO,
disregarding the elements brought forward by the Telcos/ISPs.
As the main issue for Telcos, and in particular for the ones that have a
leading edge on Mobile Communications, i.e. the Europeans ;>), is the
convergence of numbering and addressing, and their main concern is to be cut
off by a process that assigns to the RIRs the overall responsibility for
address assignment policy, the need for further evaluation exists.

If this is true, the choice of Kraaijenbrink as the person in the Board to
work on it is most appropriate.

(BTW, my bet is that the telephone numbering as is today will be just a
subset of the IP addressing space, a sort of a "legacy system" - but that's
just a personal POV)

> I also heard ICANN was planning to create a similar ad hoc 
> group in the
> DNSO space, to look at alternatives to TLDs (RealNames, etc.)
> 

IMHO, it has not the same urgency as the addressing, but must be addressed
(pun not intended) as well, sooner or later.
Let's face it: by the time a process will be in place to introduce new
gTLDs, a different scheme is very likely to be developing.
I had this discussion on public lists about a year ago (if not more - time
is flying), and triggered it also in CORE when I was part of it. The
"requirement" from the general Internet user is to reach the site he/she
wants to reach, which we tend to translate into the need for specialized
and/or extended TLDs because we are used to a hierarchical root system. This
is not at all the answer technology will provide.
I don't have the cristal ball, but it seems to me that Directory Services,
powered search engines, and so on, will provide on the long term a more
suitable answer than adding gTLDs.

It will not be wise for ICANN not to be prepared to have a leading role in
the debate when times will become ripe (again, no pun intended).

> Of course, this could all be rumor, or simple 
> misinterpretation on my part
> <smile>.

Let me join you in the <smile>.

Regards
Roberto