Subject: Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] one final last call comment on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:45:19 +0100

At 09:13 15/12/2014, Eliot Lear wrote:
>Obviously this needs to get filled in.  Jari and I are working on
>doing just that.  This will be documentary in nature, much like the
>shepherd write-up.
I certainly welcome Adrian Farrel's points as I share his support of 
RFC 6852 (with the restriction concerning its technical 
accountability framework). Everything which will make this document 
clearer and more in line with the currently identified 
standardization paradigm is extremely welcome.

In addition, I already underlined the shepherd write-up is 
uncomplete, as it does not mention my intent to appeal an IESG 
approbation of the intended RFC, if it did not include as a clear 
section of a disclaimer by IESG or/and an IAB, or/and an ISOC

A. regarding the ultimate nature of this text I consider as a double 
IAB abdication (if there is a real IETF consensus about it, people 
are entitled to see it printed):

1. of its leading role and responsibility in the internet governance 
cross-accountability framework (the reason of my appeal concering RFC 
6852 delayed by the NTIA annoucement)
2. obliging internet users (IUsers) to distrust the NTIA plans and 
technically migrate to DNS zones outside of the ICANN oversight 
without the sufficient prelimnary guidance of the IAB they are entitled to.

B. regarding its violations of the charter:

1. as a letter to an ICANN group rather than an IETF statement.
2. its lack of consideration of the IUWG contribution at: 
http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.03.pdf

jfc

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:50:38 -0500

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:45:19PM +0100, Jefsey wrote:
> In addition, I already underlined the shepherd write-up is uncomplete, as it
> does not mention my intent to appeal an IESG approbation of the intended
> RFC, if it did not include as a clear section of a disclaimer by IESG or/and
> an IAB, or/and an ISOC

That is not incomplete.  Stated intentions that have not actually
produced any action are not, in fact, evidence that needs to be
considered at all.  As a general rule, I do not believe that possible
future actions by someone constitute evidence about the state of
affairs in the present.  The shepherd write-up is supposed to reflect
the state of the WG's actual consensus, not the state of any WG's
consensus in any possible world.

> http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.03.pdf

That contribution was considered by the WG, in that some people who
are participants in the WG said they read it or tried to.  None of the
responses on the mailing list suggested it caused any rethinking of
the text.  Some participants said they didn't understand it.  Others
said it was irrelevant to the WG's work.

The shepherd write-up does not have to mention everything anyone ever
said about a document, because if an observation did not produce any
appreciable effect on the WG's discussion then it cannot be taken to
be a point of serious consideration by the WG.  The IESG knows where
the WG archives are; if they want a blow-by-blow review of the WG's
discussions, they can read those archives.  The write-up is instead
intended to provide the IESG with the context necessary to understand
WG consensus.  I do not believe that the contribution you refer to
there had any effect whatsoever on WG consensus.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 04:13:05 +0100

Dear Andrew,

I fully understand that you are defending the interests of your 
fellow employees. You will accept that I am defending the interests 
of my fellow IUsers.

Unfortunately, you accepted to be the shepherd of a document making 
the IETF decision on a point you disagree we should agree.

My remarks are interspersed.

At 17:50 15/12/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> uncomplete, as it

This seems to be in contradiction with the RFC 4858 letter and spirit.

>the text.

This should be mentioned since it is part of the charter and a 
Chair's commitment.

>Some participants said they didn't understand it.  Others

I hope this was intended to purposely hurt Libre's contributors.

These co-authors of this effort have actually read this:
- as despising - not encouraging an internet user cooperation with the IETF,
- as a leading business competitor's fear of their permissionless 
innovation rights and plans. They thank you for the free market 
study! I am more reserved: I just do not understand you – except if 
you consider me and the independent users as your competition? I felt 
there were plenty of room for all on the internet?

After the unfortunate cut-off dates of the WG mishaps, they feel that 
I did not have to publish our draft as an I_D. Not making it subject 
to the non-CC BCP-78 proprietary license...  We are a small team. I 
am not going to split from them.

>discussions, they can read those archives.

OK. Now you are laughing at IESG. Look, I am not interested in the 
inter/internal ICANN - IAB - IESG - IETF rifts. As an IUser I am 
interested in a working Internet we can use. With your wording here I 
am sorry to say that you have by yourself:

- taken the responsibility of the DNS technology and governance fork 
that I tried to prevent for years. We are just tired of these useless 
non productive tussles.
- definitely sparked yourself an architectural competition to your 
multimillion dollar DNS corporation.

Let's be candid. I am not aware that anyone else formally announced 
an appeal. So why take the risk of playing it low key?

Or, would it be because the Charter's Milestones will require the 
RFC-Editor accepts to by-pass the rules and publish a document that 
will be under appeal? Sorry this is not our IETF.  Press and 
historians know where to read about the RFC Editor practice, under 
Jon Postel, in such cases.

Or, would it be because the NTIA only spoke of the DNS and that to 
protect the "unique authoritative root" golden fairy tale that the 
ICANN and I*core "communities"  complicate the transition issue in 
discussing it as if the IANA was relinquishing the whole IANA 
oversight? Since RIRs consider addresses as their monopolistic 
revenue source, and ICANN and many here are unsure about the CLASS 
"IN" names monopoly, many would like, for a long, to merge the two 
monopolies before NDN and ION/IoT take off and the MYCANN and GOVCANN 
plug-ins interfere with the CORPCANN-add-ons.

>The write-up is instead

This is a well stated evaluation of the importance given by an IETF 
and a business leader pundit to the contribution of FLOSS community 
members, internet users, and non-I*core stakeholders. This will 
permit my appeal to raise the additional question of conflict of 
interests with internet users in the IETF standardization business 
process, and who are the network stakeholders from an NTIA/ISOC point 
of view. Two matters which will definitely justify the appeal to be 
escalated to ISOC.

Andrew, I have tried to make everyone cooperating with me respect the 
IETF Tao, so far. I am sorry that you decided to cross the limits and 
illustrate the obsolete and unsecure "one single authoritative root" 
lobby's bias. This definitely shows me that I was wrong all along in 
trusting IAB: IUsers cannot trust the IAB anymore. We must look 
elsewhere for a secure, trusted, and reliable use of the global 
catenet that we pay for.

That's too bad. But this is real life.

We need a better, cheaper, people mastered, more flexible, more 
reliable, and cross accountable internet than the one you want to 
sell us. And I am afraid we will get it. I hoped we would cooperate: 
I discover that you want to compete, including within the IETF.

I am dismayed. However, thank you for clarifying my illusions.

jfc