Subject: Re: [iucg] [governance] [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:16:32 +0200

Dear John,

Thank you for this clarification of yours.

We all accept that RFC 6852 is a pragmatic
political evolution from RFC 3869 within the statUS-quo, in line with the
USG position that I found to be best described in the last page of
Zbigniew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard": world peace and
development can only result from a global cooperation coordinated by the
US.

This doctrine has led the USSR to run out of steam, but also, in the
aftermath of the cold war, to the US and Europe calling for a relative
break. This is the statUS-quo (and the global financial crisis)
strategy.

This makes the core issues:

- survival for the US in leading world development,

- for the rest of the world to survive the US.

Survival of the US in leading world development

In RFC 3869, IAB requested the USG to continue to be the source
of R&D non-commercial funding. This was in order to protect the
technology from commercial biases. RFC 6852 draws on the US strategy
evolution, which does not directly provide direct funding anymore (as
they did during the launching period) but politically want to coordinate
its provision. This is a way to declare that the IP maturity period is
now reached, and the world is now to operate under the statUS-quo
industrial solution.

Why not, if it works? This is a matter of specialization. The non-US
RIRs, which depend on this technology, could only rally this proposition.
The quickest was the best for all.

What is interesting is that RFC 6852 officializes the world technology as
dependent on the statUS-quo, not on the US government. This allows the
"cooperation" to smoothly accommodate reactions like the
Brazil's one.

At the same time, the OpenStand cooperation does not ostensibly include
the US "coordination" (i.e. ICANN and ARIN). Well
done!

The only concern one may have is in having the question made more
precise: "why not, if it works better?"

I am not sure that it is the case of what definitely appears to be a
TCP/IP radical monopoly (cf. Ivan Illitch) rather than a “natural” one.
This would mean that OpenStand would be a long range anticompetitive
alliance. However, OpenStand members may turn me wrong by documenting
three missing sections in their modern paradigm for standards:

1. a comprehensive, scientific, transparent, operational, and maintained
documentation and manual of the I* technology that everyone might
understand and review. What exactly are they selling us?

2. a structured and advertised possibility to explore, discuss,
experiment, and deploy alternative or partly alternative technologies
with an equal access to research and documentation funding sources (IETF
has accepted to bootstrap such a possibility through the IUCG@IETF
mailing list).

3. a consistent common appeal procedure for every OpenStand document and
work.

Then, should still be clarified the market monopolies of ICANN and RIRs.
There are six possible IPv6 numbering plans. StatUS-quo NRO only needs
one. One should go to ITU, one to ISO, one to ICC and one to OpenUse.
These would leave one for common R&D.

For the rest of the world to survive the US

I genuinely wish the best for the US, but I can observe that the
American thinking, society, behavior, and history follow the Gauss curve
and seem (for example, the global financial crisis) to have a problem
with the Pareto curve of events that the nature and the rest of the world
seem to follow nowadays.

My, probably stupid, feeling is that nature, history, and ecosystems
follow rules based on the chaotic determinism of very wide collections;
along principles that have been discovered, analyzed, and documented in
the case of the internet by RFC 1122 (robustness), 1958 (permanent
change, end to end, fringe to fringe), 3439 (simplicity), and illustrated
by RFC 5895 (subsidiarity). These rules lead to some kind of a
probability-mix between Gauss and Pareto, which one calls the
sustainability curve. Sustainability curves seem to be based upon the
strategy of effilience (efficacy vs. resilience) that one chooses to
follow.

The problem is that I do not trust the statUS-quo digital effilience.
Moreover, in such a case, French law obliges me to abide by the
precautionary principle. This principle states that when one does not
trust a technically based solution it is up to the proponent of this
solution to prove it is safe.

This is just what I am asking the statUS-quo to do. The point is the
trust in the adequacy of the architectural choice and management:
therefore, the debate is to be architectonical. In this situation I
oppose no one, and I object to nothing, but I want to be convinced that
the proposition is safe and positive (negentropic), effilient (the best
for all, at the lowest cost), and people centric as we unanimously
decided at the WSIS. I am not an opponent, I am a user. I am not a
competitor, I am a client.

Please, convince me that the OpenStand/ARIN/ICANN statUS-quo, including
your market monopoly, addresses and/or does not block the internet
intelligent-users' needs and desired practices, and that ARIN is not
involved what so ever in router control or ICANN in

Best,

jfc

At 21:54 02/09/2013, John Curran wrote:

On Aug 31, 2013, at 9:09 AM, JFC
Morfin <[email-masked]>
wrote:

Why is this that RIRs have been
the first to endorse OpenStand RFC 6852

http://open-stand.org/home-page/endorsements/?

For clarity, ARIN did not endorse the Open Stand platform, predominantly

because when the opportunity to participate presented itself, there was

insufficient time for consideration of this particular statement of
principles

and implications by the ARIN community. Note also that "not
endorsing"

does not equate to rejecting the Open Stand principles; it simply means
that

they have not been brought before the ARIN community for consideration

at this time.

Many of the Open Stand principles (e.g. openness, transparency, equity,

fairness, consensus) may be found in ARIN's foundational documents,

but to me that does not equate to having community consideration and

endorsement of the full platform as it applies to the mission of
ARIN.

Additionally, the Open Stand principles appear to have been chosen
in

the context of technical standards development, and was not clear how

such principles would apply to activities for Internet number resource

management.  For example, while calling for "voluntarily
adoption" of

technical standards is fairly clear, less clear is how such a principle

would apply to the various registries (e.g. protocol, number, or name

registries) - all of which are predicated on consistent and near
universal

adoption in order to maintain uniqueness and global
interoperability.

Similarly, technical "standards that are chosen and defined based on

technical merit" seems quite clear, but that becomes less clear in
the

registry policy realm given the possibility of applicable public policy

directives and/or mandates that may also warrant consideration in

the development of registry policy.

Given the lack of ARIN community consideration of these principles, as

well as some uncertainty regarding its application to ARIN's mission, it

was not possible to endorse the Open Stand platform at
announcement.

FYI,

/John

John Curran

President and CEO

ARIN

p.s.   FYI - ARIN's representation of the community in the
region (on matters

of Internet governance
and overall Internet policy) is based upon those

positions that have been
repeatedly discussed at our member meetings

and which are
represented on our web site here:

<
https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/arin.html>

please feel free to
provide feedback to me if you feel that these positions

are lacking in some
manner - Thanks!