Subject: Re: [iucg] [ianatransition] Disaster scenarios (was Re: Jurisdiction)

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 01:14:42 +0200

Dear all,

I am familiar with the mathematical theory of catastrophes, physical 
SOC (self-ordering criticality), precision computation and 
probalities. However, IANAL and I am unable to evaluate the 
pertinence of this IAB led legal debate.

Is there a lawyer on this ICANN list who could help us in explaining 
what is the case? the IAB position? What Andrew does not want to 
explain? and the resulting risks for the users?

I must accept that I am lost with the undecidability of the words I 
have put in bold characters. All I grasp is that, should an US Judge 
respect the US law, it might happen, under conditions I am unable to 
identify, that the whole internet might collapse.

This seems to lead to the idea that the internet architecture should 
be updated and become US law-proof. And by the same token law-proof 
to any national legislation. This IAB opinion seems to leave us with 
two options:

1. only the international law applies, but the NTIA  has refused it, 
since it would mean a multilateral agreement and States specific 
involvement (i.e. a part of the WCIT)

2. code is the law. In such a case the code is to be developped along 
some ethic to attain some esthetic. I know two of them:
     - WSIS: the information society (hence its communications) are 
to be people centered.
     - RFC 6852: the target is the huge bounty and innovation 
proceeding from competition.and markets economics.

At 23:36 04/08/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 04:59:22PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
> >
> > If I were a network appliance manufacturer either I adhere to
> > published standards/registries or should my finances suffer due to
> > this my investors would have good reason to sue and likely win
> > something, perhaps removal of officers or even financial remuneration.
>
>Yes.  But I don't think we're talking about single actors in the
>hypothetical cases we were talking about.  That appears to be what
>you're describing above, and it's certainly not what I meant.
>
>Let's return to the example posited earlier: some US court orders
>ICANN to reallocate an address (contrary to some policy).  The only
>way ICANN can actually do that is to withdraw the entire block it
>allocated to the RIR in question.  Note that, as a practical matter,
>the address would probably be allocated outside ARIN's service area,
>because if it weren't, the order would presumably be against ARIN
>instead.
>
>I believe that, under those circumstances, there is a significant
>probability that the RIRs would decide to ignore the then-current
>implementer of the IANA address policies, and that LIRs and ISPs and
>so on would by and large follow the RIRs (or, I guess we might say in
>this case, the NRO) in the new policies, despite what IANA had to say
>on the matter.
>
>This would be, without any doubt, an extremely bad outcome for
>everyone, in that there'd be a period of global confusion (and
>whatever block of addresses was ordered transferred would be a total
>mess).  But it seems to me that the end result would almost certainly
>be that people would stop using the IANA co-ordination mechanism,
>because it had become corruped by an external power beyond the control
>of participants.  People would come up with a different answer, and
>work out how to co-ordinate it, or else we'd lose the Internet.
>
>There is the possibility, of course, that the same US court would
>order US ISPs and so on to use the US-based IANA and everyone else
>would ditch it.  This would also be very bad, in that there'd be the
>US-model Internet and the everywhere-else model.  It would also be
>entertaining (in the way disaster movies are) to see such a rule
>enforced, but I can imagine someone attempting to do it anyway.
>
>Now, I'm aware that others think that we need some mechanism that will
>guarantee these sorts of disaster can't happen.  I have argued that I
>think that desire can't actually be satisfied (I'm not going to
>rehearse that argument, because I said I wouldn't).
>
>Best regards,
>
>A

I thank every help in order to best understand this.position of the 
IAB representative on this list.
jfc

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 19:38:35 -0400

Dear colleagues,

I must correct a misrepresentation from M. Morfin.

> pertinence of this IAB led legal debate.
[…]
> what is the case? the IAB position? 
[…]
> to any national legislation. This IAB opinion seems to leave us with

I do not speak for the IAB, and M. Morfin is familiar enough with IETF
procedures to know that perfectly well.  If the IAB had a position, it
would produce it as an IAB statement, or as an IAB-track RFC.  Given
his frequent citation of various RFCs, I cannot tell whether M. Morfin
has unexpectedly forgotten how the IAB works, or whether he intends to
misrepresent the state of affairs in order to lead others astray.

I am, it is true, a sitting member of the IAB.  I do not speak for the
IAB, however, and I don't think I have represented myself as speaking
for it.  (I'm also an employee, and don't speak for my employer; a
Canadian, but don't speak for other Canadians; a US citizen, but don't
speak for other USians; and so on.)

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 09:31:50 +0200

Dear Andrew,

>I must correct a misrepresentation from M. Morfin.

I do thank you for this clarification. I must say it was necessary, 
because it was not a misrepresentation but the courteous 
representation of an incertitude about an ambiguity.

When other members of directly involved bodies, eg. John Curan from 
ARIN, express their opinions (seldom their beliefs), they are careful 
at indicating they express their personal opinion or to include an 
"(off hat)" header. One obviously can forget from time to time to 
mention it, as I happen to confuse the caps I may wear or share - Jay 
Daley imaginatively keeps adding new ones every day :-), very 
exciting. However, when this is constant, very active, with an agenda 
which may interfere with the IAB charter, and without any IAB other 
member challenging these  positions, one could reasonably consider 
that you float some IAB ideas, or test them, or try to indirectly 
influence your fellow members in obtaining some external support.

I am glad to hear that this is not the case.
jfc

>_______________________________________________
>ianatransition mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition