Subject: Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] teasing the issues apart -- IANA.org, authoritative IETF repository

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 09:58:36 +0200

At 09:14 10/10/2014, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>IMHO, as long as ICANN continues to host iana.org (as part of providing
>at least one of the IANA functions, or as a hosting service alone) it
>must point to the authoritative registry location in case a new operator
>for a function is selected.

Andrei,
the point is not what others "must" do, but what if they don't do.
jfc

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:14:35 +0200

At 23:50 09/10/2014, Leslie Daigle (TCE) wrote:
>I feel there is still a discussion to be had here, though I am 
>sensitive to the fact that we're spelunking in a pretty big rathole 
>at this time. Trying to tease issues apart to see if it helps the 
>discussion -- from the couple of days' messages, it seems that:

Thank you, this defines the IETF present questions rather well that 
are to be seen, at this WG/IANAPLAN through Andrew Sullivan's filter: 
"Our charter tells us to do the minimum possible. We should heed its 
instructions." However, we have to be careful at not doing less than 
the minimum required.

1. internet ownership

>1/ Some people think the IETF (Trust) is the obvious home of iana.org .

Yes. This makes the ISOC/IETF Trust the owner of the Internet 
technology. From a Libre point of view, RFCs should be subject to a 
Chinese wall and the internet use to be specified again from a user 
point of view in order to free the internet system from the IETF Trust.

>  Others don't believe that and/or think it would be a stretch to 
> get the rest of the world to agree.

Correct. It is unlikely that BRICS, Europe, and Libre will accept the 
IETF Trust terms at this stage. This may result in some TPP/TAFTA 
legal actions that will have no impact on the people's intelligent 
use of the internet. However, might affect IETF and ICANN's image and 
credibility and the US industry's interests.

>But, for now, I would like to suggest we take discussion of "1/" off 
>the table.

This would not make any sense, if (as most probably the rest of the 
world believes) "1/" is the key to "2/".

==> suggested action: to port the IETF deliverables (RFCs and IANA 
Tables) under a Creative Common license. From ISOC proprietary to 
Free. From a GSN pact to people's Libre.

2. tightly bind the future to the past.

>2/ The issue that Eliot opened on the document was to address how 
>best to go about "requiring the current operator make clear upon 
>termination that their copy is no longer the version that is 
>maintained on our behalf, where at on[e] point (today and hopefully 
>long from now) it was.  " (Eliot's words).
>
>I think "2/" has been characterized as rational contractual 
>behavior, and it seems like a worthwhile problem to address.  The 
>challenge is that the most obvious way to achieve 2 is to bind 
>iana.org and the registries, tightly, as they are today.

This supposes that the real world is not the world described by the 
RFC 6852 paradigm, i.e. there is still only one global community 
network managed by ICANN and documented by ISOC.

3. Preventing the fork

>Other thoughts?

Unless the IESG, IAB, and ISOC say otherwise you are documenting an 
IETF fork between the past and reality, and between IEN 48 first and 
second objectives, when it could have been cooperation between robust 
end to end lower layers and intelligent fringe to fringe higher layers.

==> suggested action: to add to the RFC 3935 missions of the IETF: 
"to engage in the IEN 48 second objective along its core values, the 
RFC 6852 paradigm and the consequence of the US/NTIA removal, i.e. to 
share the global catenet among/with other technologies". This would 
translate into advocating a WG/RFC3935bis.

4. Conclusion

There are only three clarifications needed:

1/ is the NTIA transitioning its DNS or complete IANA oversight?
2/ is RFC 3935 or RFC 6852 the reference for the IETF or a consistent 
update of RFC 3869, 3935, and 6852 to be done?
3/ is the IETF wishing to constrain innovation to the past, or 
provide a stable basis to open future innovation?

This seems to clearly delineate the purpose of my appeal. Thank you.

jfc

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:22:24 +0200

>At 23:08 12/10/2014, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>It is my assumption that the Trustees are following this discussion 
>and are thinking about next  steps.

If they discussed it in here, subject to the IETF consensus and to 
the IUsers' review, it could save us an appeal and possibly avoid a fork.

>At 00:08 13/10/2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>IMHO that can include our expectations for any future additional 
>legal framework, plus the factual statement that the IETF Trust is 
>the responsible body for actual legal ink on paper.

Ink on paper without having something to say is just a blot. To 
decide what to say (and what to do) belongs to this WG.

>At 00:20 13/10/2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>Which, to me, says that:
>1. The WG charter is not sufficient to yield a complete response to 
>the TCG, and
>2. It is not at all clear how the parts of the response, outside the 
>WG's purview, are to be developed and coordinated.
>
>If the response is to be both complete, and the result of a 
>consensus process -- leaving those issues in limbo seems inappropriate.

Amen.

>At 01:28 13/10/2014, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>The working group will not attempt to produce or discuss 
>documentation for these details, but will request the IAB or IAOC to 
>provide them separately.

Instead of updating the charter, I might just appeal for changing its 
name from "ianaplan" to "ianaplahplah"...

>The WG shall seek the expertise of the IAB IANA Evolution Program to 
>formulate its output. It is expected that members of the IAB IANA 
>Evolution Program will actively participate in the WG."

For our best common information: who in this debate is a member of 
the "IAB IANA Evolution Program"? How many here are in that Program 
and how many in total?

>At 09:25 13/10/2014, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >On 13/10/14 04:52, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > I hope to see some response to this point from responsible IETF 
> participants.
>You are an IETF participant since you are posting to this list.

Agreed! :-) However, this may call for a more in depth reading of RFC 3935.

>RFC 3935 - Definition of terms:
>- "Volunteer Core - our participants and our leadership are people 
>who come to the IETF because they want to do work that furthers the 
>IETF's mission of "making the Internet work better""
>- "Participants: Individuals who participate in the process are the 
>fundamental unit of the IETF organization and the IETF's work."
>- "Relevant: In this context, useful to some group of people who 
>have to make decisions that affect the Internet, including, but not 
>limited to, hardware and software implementors, network builders, 
>network operators, and users of the Internet.  Note that it does not 
>mean "correct" or "positive""

RFC 3935 - Mission Statement:
"The IETF has to make decisions.  And in some cases, people acting on 
behalf of the IETF have to make decisions without consulting the 
entire IETF first" - "Having a defined mission is one of the steps we 
can take in order to evaluate alternatives: Does this help or hinder 
the mission, or is it orthogonal to it? If there are limited 
resources, are there things that they could be invested in that help 
the mission better? Having a defined mission is one of the steps we 
can take in order to evaluate alternatives: Does this help or hinder 
the mission, or is it orthogonal to it? If there are limited 
resources, are there things that they could be invested in that help 
the mission better? (Another step is to choose leaders that we trust 
to exercise their good judgement and do the right thing.  But we're 
already trying to do that.)".

The leaders who we trust have exercised their good judgment and have 
done the right thing in changing the mission (and the standard 
process) of the IETF, through RFC 6852.

- From IETF: "to make the Internet work better" by rough consensus.
- To OpenStand IETF:  "to contribute to the economics of global 
markets fueled by technological advancements, in driving a global 
deployment of standards developed through an open participatory 
process and voluntarily adopted globally that support 
interoperability and foster global competition regardless of their 
formal status, serve as building blocks for products and services 
targeted at meeting the needs of the market and consumer, and thereby 
drive an innovation that in turn will result in the creation of new 
markets and the growth and expansion of existing markets."

As a result, we face a cultural difference between the traditional 
IETF "rough consensus" and the new ISOC/OpenStand RFC 6852 "broad 
consensus" documented by Lynn St-Amour/Don Tapscott's in the Internet 
multi-stakeholders GSN doctrine sponsored by Google/State 
Department/RBC, etc. and adopted, imposed, and propagated by the NTIA.

- in the IETF, the rough consensus is evaluated by the Chair,
- in a GSN environment, broad consensus is worked out among the 
WG-advised leaders of the mutually selected stakeholders in order to 
enforce the assigned goal.

In this case, the goal assigned to the WG is to document a seamless 
application of the NTIA ukase, thereby making the internet work better or not.

As if the govs and users were to seamlessly adopt a strategy that 
they have already voted gainst and will vote against - as they 
consider it preoccupying for democracy, people rights, development, 
and world peace as being demanded by the core (*) dominant state, the 
invading edge (*), and the spying leader (*) for economic reasons 
(*). Our best interest is the same as the US best interest, i.e. 
internet stability, neutrality, and transparency. Our duty is to make 
the NTIA understand that the way to reach that common goal is not the 
"status quo" and the ICANN being unilaterally global (BUG) to best 
serve a Business United Governance (BUG).

(*) <note>These terms are from/to be considered in relation to the 
RFC 3935 definition of the term "Internet": " The Internet: A large, 
heterogeneous collection of interconnected systems that can be used 
for communication of many different types between any interested 
parties connected to it.

The term includes both
- the "core Internet" (ISP networks)
- and "edge Internet"  (corporate and private networks, often 
connected via firewalls, NAT boxes, application layer gateways and 
similar devices).

The Internet is a truly global network, reaching into just about 
every country in the world.

The IETF community wants the Internet to succeed because we believe 
that the existence of the Internet, and its influence on economics, 
communication, and education, will help us to build a better human society".

At that time (10 years ago this month), the Internet was to influence 
economics rather than to be led by it. Its target was to build a 
better human society; not to reduce us into better consumers parked 
in global market communities.
<note>

>At 12:08 13/10/2014, Richard Hill wrote:
>The IGC charter says that the ICG will deliver its report to the 
>NTIA.  Since the discussions on this list are about replying to the 
>ICG, I think that we have to stick to what the ICG charter says.

We can certainly take into account what the IGC will tell ICANN to 
report to the NTIA on the IANA transition in response to their 
question on the DNS transition. However, don't you think we should 
mainly focus on telling the IESG that we want to stick to the way to 
make the internet work better under the new circumstances that we 
observe and expect?

>At 16:06 13/10/2014, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>Why don't we recommend that these (or similar) provisions are added 
>to the existing MoU, since, as we all agree, the existing system 
>hasn't raised any concerns for the IETF?

what about the wording/relation with RUSIANA, CNIANA, INDIANA, JFCIANA?

Cheers
jfc