Subject: Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06.txt> (Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA protocol parameters registries) to Informational RFC

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:09:52 +0100

At 11:27 10/12/2014, Jari Arkko wrote:
>Richard,
> > On 27 November, I requested that the co-chairs provide a justification for
> > the conclusion that rough consensus has been achieved, see:
> >
> >  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01402.html
> >
> > The requested justification has not yet been provided.

Richard,

The justification has not yet been provided, and my intent to appeal 
any decision based upon a text that does not address the charter, as 
this is the case, has not been reported.

Things settle by sontaneous order or self-organized criticality, 
depending on the way they have been metaprepared. The only thing 
which can now be done is to smooth the well engaged criticality in 
making things clear about permissionless innovation, something BCP 78 
opposes and RFC 6852 presupposes.

Elements of this criticality are, among others, the NTIA/ISOC 
opposition (ICANN has been given the lead of what ISOC has prepared), 
the WEF involvement,  IIC 
http://www.industrialinternetconsortium.org/, the inconsideration of 
Libre (and of the "MYCANN-plug-ins"), the disregard of the WCIT vote, 
Rosettanet, the transition from Executive to Legislative and Justice 
under an unclear virtual territory jurisdiction extending to some 
kinds of private/personal sovereignties (through multistakeholderism 
where "everyone is on an equal footing").

In a nutshell the multitechnological use of the common catenet has 
been blocked for 30 years by the internet status-quo strategy. The 
infant Governance is only still unprepared to switch to the regular 
permissionless innovation internet system,

jfc