Subject: Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] SSAC Report on the IANA Functions contract

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 20:13:03 +0200

At 10:34 14/10/2014, Richard Hill wrote:
>The SSAC has prepared a Report on the IANA Functions Contract 
>(SAC068).  It is at:
>
>   https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-068-en.pdf

Dear Richard,

This document concerns the pre-post-NTIA-removal. I belong to those 
who do not believe ICANN can have the NTIA's US sovereignty 
transferred to it. In that category, there seems to be 191 non-US 
States that do not share the NTIA plan, and actually have, in their 
wide majority, voted against it or politely abstained in Dubai.

What I know is that from now until September 30, 2015, all of them, 
most of the ISP, Libre developers, network lead users, entrepreneurs, 
militaries, informed politicians, etc. will consider at one time or 
another the "MYCANN Plugs-in" options. We all know how to assemble 
it. However, we do not know where it can politically/commercially 
lead us and what will be the innovative impact on the vision of the 
network architecture.

For the transition to be seamless, this new NTIA-less context is to 
be prepared.

If ICANN has found a credible self-accountability formula (not only a 
"community" applauded one), many will stay with ICANN, at least until 
the MYCANN Plugs-in have been validated.

Many others will probably have a gallant, legal, or greedy attempt at 
having one or several MYCANN Plugs-in. They will most probably help 
improving their codes, features, and services and stabilize them in 
the architectural netscape, as has happened for NATs.

It is up to this WG to decide how its beloved status quo is going to 
match this.

I have played my whistleblower's part. It is on the records. I will 
appeal the IESG in due time (after having seen how this debate 
develops), and then probably the IAB, and thereafter probably ISOC. I 
have started exploring, experimenting, preparing documents, and 
gathering developers. Our team will proceed (and advocate to proceed) 
along the ICANN ICP-3 reasonable constraints. Our first objective is 
the experimentation, a pragmatic understanding of the nature, 
structure, advantages, and risks of a MYCANN Plug-in (MPI), and then 
report on it.

As per RFC 6852, lead users, developers, governments, cyber commands, 
entrepreneurs, politics, edge providers, manufacturers, ISPs, and 
markets will then decide.

Best,
jfc

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 01:36:24 +0200

At 22:13 19/10/2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>Either way, though, the notion that voluntary standards bodies are 
>the authoritative parties vis-a-vis the Internet should carry over 
>into a post-NTIA world.

Dear Miles,

I understand and agree with your analysis (and I can innovatively 
explain it with scientific rigor), BUT that is provided the IETF 
technology is the only acceptable/possible digital network 
technology, and the way it is managed is agreed by everyone.

We know that this is not the case. Three points extensively 
documented by experience, analysis, books, documents of reference, 
etc. show it:

- the NTIA oversight is only an avatar of the 1977 initiated 
variation of the USG regulation of a universal service - that is 
still subsidized. The NTIA transition is only an adaptation of this 
regulation 40 years later on, taking into consideration the change of 
scale in use and locality.

- the internet architecture is blocked since 1983. This is the 
"status-quo" US strategy: IETF has never scaled above the first IEN 
48 motivation (a global TCP/IP catenet) and engaged in the second 
motivation (a TCP/IP Tymnet). It planned it, it did not do it, but 
the world is engaged in the process. This makes innovation an 
uncertain parameter. Lower layers may very well stay stable (probably 
not the way you see it, because there is no real "voluntary" SDO at 
these layers anymore, but along RFC 6852). The architecture is 
opening through the economically based technical competition among 
"global communities". Plural. This means that the "technical market 
power" (capacity to impose its standards by market influence) of 
DARPA, NSA, USCC is progressively affected by what can be called an 
"intelligent use by economic necessity".

- the digitalities' networks have three main strata: hardware, 
software, brainware. Tymnet, IANA, ICANN have demonstrated that the 
naming space rules the nets - and technology and politics are showing 
that this is at the three strata.

With the gTLDs mad project ICANN has killed its only advantage: 
clarity.They also have been unable to make the IETF keep the 
multilingual space (names and tags) efficient and clear.

As a result ICANN cannot help stabilizing innovation through names.
- Hardwware: IoT, NDN.
- Software: iDNs do not really work + MYCANN plugs-in.+ Rossetanet
- Brainware: names/languages is the brain's semantics communication's 
technology. ICANN and IETF are decades away of "brain names" and 
their semantic upper layer evolution. This is documented in 
ICANN/ICP-3: how to R&D a non-unique authoritatie root DNS.

Now, again, I played my wistleblower part. I will keep wistling 
through an appeal. But now I work.
Cheers.
jfc

jfc

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 19:04:19 +0200

At 01:51 20/10/2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>JFC Morfin wrote:
>Appreciate the concurrence, but beg to differ that we're talking 
>about technology here.  The topic is on the table is governance, 
>specifically governance of protocols and numbering for a specific 
>infrastructure, the Internet.

Dear Miles,

We are discussing the overlooked fundamental layer that can help 
everyone understand the issue.

However, we need to be clear about the real matter. As you say, the 
topic on the table is governance, but governance of the international 
use of a given uncompleted technology within the circumstances of a 
given operational strategy. My reading is that the topic is on the 
table because the technology leaders (RFC 6852) have (IMHO, correctly 
but incompletely) evaluated that the market forces are competitively 
completing the technology - what is going to affect the operational 
strategy - and modify the economical/political/commercial equilibrium.

I fully realize that we both see the situation from our respective 40 
year old American and International technical and political 
backgrounds. This is why I think that we can bring this debate to its 
real level and question: will we have a seamless or a competitive 
transition from the IEN 48 first to second motivations.

>By analogy - IEEE is the accepted standards body and registrar for 
>all things related to Ethernet - including, not only protocols, but 
>things like UUIDs.  For the Internet, IETF is essentially playing 
>the same role - with some aspects (names, numbers) being done by 
>several other bodies.

Yes. The question is simple: do IEEE, IAB, IETF, ISOC, and W3C cover 
today the entire digital technology spectrum? This WG assumes that 
the answer is yes and accepts a governance status quo on its faith in 
an architectural status quo (what does not prevent technological innovations).

I have full respect for believers, but I am afraid that we are 
confronted with an over conservative faith vision. There is an 
architectonical (what concerns architectures) dichotomy between the 
IETF offering and the markets' (identified as technically competing 
"global communities" on economic grounds by our leaders) needs. In 
more practical terms and IETF language: the IETF end to end does not 
match the fringe to fringe needs, and as a result the digital 
governance is unstabilized by the edge provision (and this is just 
the beginning of big data).

>>regulation 40 years later on, taking into consideration the change 
>>of scale in use and locality.
>
>Wow, is that not the case.  Internet governance - by NTIA and others 
>is incredibly far from the regimes imposed on telecom. carriers by 
>the FCC and state Public Utility Commissions - stemming from a 
>legislative tradition dating back to the 1910 Mann-Elkins Act (wrote 
>a book chapter on the evolution of US telecom regulation at one 
>point).  The machinations that the Internet community went through 
>to avoid any such regulation were pretty intense, back in the day. 
>Arguably, we (in the US at least) would be better off in terms of 
>things like "network neutrality" if Internet access networks were 
>subject to common carrier regulation.

This is probably overlooking a few deregulation issues and the global 
context (as we saw in Dubai). However, on a triple decade basis we 
agree: what the NTIA is attempting is a "smart return to the past". 
To bring back the enhanced services under regulation, a quite 
different and adapted form of regulation, but regulation all the 
same. I am not against the idea, but if we do not want a technical 
civil war, we are better to discuss it as such as incumbents (IETF, 
ICANN, RIRs stakeholders) have to adapt and welcome newcomers (from 
my point of view those I call the IUsers, with an "I" standing for 
many characteristics, including "inventive".

Does the IETF want a competition or an alliance with the IUsers? This 
is the question. IUsers are not well understood/accepted as a 
community yet, except as the "paying one" ("consumers"). IMHO, in an 
economy driven technology (RFC 6852), the future is on the purses' side.

>>uncertain parameter. Lower layers may very well stay stable 
>>(probably not the way you see it, because there is no real 
>>"voluntary" SDO at these layers anymore, but along RFC 6852). The 
>>architecture is opening through the economically based technical 
>>competition among "global communities". Plural. This means that the 
>>"technical market power" (capacity to impose its standards by 
>>market influence) of DARPA, NSA, USCC is progressively affected by 
>>what can be called an "intelligent use by economic necessity".
>
>Of course one might argue that the Internet is precisely scoped as 
>an operational TCP/IP catenet - with a highly evolved governance 
>mechanism.  And that is the scope of the governance issues on the 
>table.  And, compared to other telecom regulatory environments 
>(e.g., the telephone network), far more open to evolution and 
>innovation - that's something that's working pretty well - no need to break it.

Correct. However, while you are correctly using plural for 
"environments", you are only referring to the telephone lower 
stratum, and implicitly opposing the ITU and, therefore, the UN. This 
is where you are breaking the system pile. There is a progress toward 
the upper layers. Status quo breaks the momentum in freezing the 
architectonic evolution.

The UN takes care of the ground. ITU takes care of the bandwidth. 
IEEE takes care of the hardware. IETF takes care of the software. I 
am interested in brainware (a more general and plural word for your 
"highly evolved governance mechanism") and in its ground, structural, 
hardware, and software support.

The question I am asking over and over again, under different ways, 
is simple. How long can brainware dynamic be supported only by the 
existing IETF layers and the ICANN monopoly? When is a new SDO to be 
created, and how it is to be pragmatically organized to best 
consolidate the common good work achieved so far?

Cheers,

jfc

---

From: Miles Fidelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 16:13:44 -0400

> wide majority, voted against it or politely abstained in Dubai.

There is another way of looking at this.

Voluntary standards bodies have long been recognized and deferred to by 
governments and inter-governmental bodies in lots of areas. Essentially, 
IETF et. al. are voluntary standards bodies, with ICANN and various 
registries operating at the behest of these voluntary standards bodies.  
At this point, the NTIA-ICANN contract is little more than written 
recognition of the role of these various standards bodies, and of ICANN 
as a contractor supporting them - and possibly adding a smidge of 
accountability and oversight within US Government jurisdiction.

Many maintain that the NTIA role is superflous and the status quo will 
remain in the absence of the NTIA contract.  Others, myself included, 
argue that some level of accountability and oversight will be required - 
particularly in that ICANN is a contractor, not a voluntary standards 
body - thus some "backstop" would be useful to reinforce the ability of 
IETF, et. al., to hold ICANN accountable, and, if necessary, to change 
contractors for the various registry functions.

Either way, though, the notion that voluntary standards bodies are the 
authoritative parties vis-a-vis the Internet should carry over into a 
post-NTIA world.

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

---

From: Miles Fidelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 19:51:01 -0400

JFC Morfin wrote:
> technology is the only acceptable/possible digital network technology, 
> and the way it is managed is agreed by everyone.

Appreciate the concurrence, but beg to differ that we're talking about 
technology here.  The topic is on the table is governance, specifically 
governance of protocols and numbering for a specific infrastructure, the 
Internet.

By analogy - IEEE is the accepted standards body and registrar for all 
things related to Ethernet - including, not only protocols, but things 
like UUIDs.  For the Internet, IETF is essentially playing the same role 
- with some aspects (names, numbers) being done by several other bodies.

>
> We know that this is not the case. Three points extensively documented 
> by experience, analysis, books, documents of reference, etc. show it:
>
> - the NTIA oversight is only an avatar of the 1977 initiated variation 
> of the USG regulation of a universal service - that is still 
> subsidized. The NTIA transition is only an adaptation of this 

Wow, is that not the case.  Internet governance - by NTIA and others is 
incredibly far from the regimes imposed on telecom. carriers by the FCC 
and state Public Utility Commissions - stemming from a legislative 
tradition dating back to the 1910 Mann-Elkins Act (wrote a book chapter 
on the evolution of US telecom regulation at one point).  The 
machinations that the Internet community went through to avoid any such 
regulation were pretty intense, back in the day. Arguably, we (in the US 
at least) would be better off in terms of things like "network 
neutrality" if Internet access networks were subject to common carrier 
regulation.

> "status-quo" US strategy: IETF has never scaled above the first IEN 48 
> motivation (a global TCP/IP catenet) and engaged in the second 
> motivation (a TCP/IP Tymnet). It planned it, it did not do it, but the 
> world is engaged in the process. This makes innovation an uncertain 
> parameter. Lower layers may very well stay stable (probably not the 
> way you see it, because there is no real "voluntary" SDO at these 
> layers anymore, but along RFC 6852). The architecture is opening 
> through the economically based technical competition among "global 
> communities". Plural. This means that the "technical market power" 
> (capacity to impose its standards by market influence) of DARPA, NSA, 
> USCC is progressively affected by what can be called an "intelligent 
> use by economic necessity".

Of course one might argue that the Internet is precisely scoped as an 
operational TCP/IP catenet - with a highly evolved governance 
mechanism.  And that is the scope of the governance issues on the 
table.  And, compared to other telecom regulatory environments (e.g., 
the telephone network), far more open to evolution and innovation - 
that's something that's working pretty well - no need to break it.

Cheers,

Miles Fidelman