Subject: [iucg] prior to he today virtual meeting

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 16:59:04 +0200

At 10:35 04/10/2014, Jari Arkko wrote:
>Jefsey,
>
> > I am sorry, but my various efforts in order to avoid an appeal 
> against the charter's status-quo spirit and letter did not succeed so far.
>
>For what it is worth, I do not plan to update the charter at this 
>time. I believe the current charter is supported by IETF consensus, 
>as determined by the IESG during the WG Review of this charter. Not 
>only was IETF-wide WG Review held (with an announcement to other 
>SDOs), but there was also a BOF held at the previous IETF meeting. 
>In both instances, the community was insistent that the WG not be 
>given the latitude to change current operational procedures.
>
>Jari Arkko (speaking as the responsible AD for the WG)

Dear Jari (as an IESG chair and WG/IANAPLAN AD),

As you know, I am planning to appeal the IESG 08 Sep 2014 09:02:52 
-0700 decision to adopt the WG/IANAPLAN Charter, but I wish we could 
avoid the implied work load and hassle.

The target so far (some additional elements may result from today's 
virtual meeting report) is for the internet users' various community 
layers (individual, local, corporate, national, governmental) to be 
able to assess the capacity and motivation of the IETF to continue 
documenting a technically better internet when a-priori strategies 
are decided on that are based upon economic motives and governmental 
injunctions, as it would seem to be the case for the response to the 
unclear NTIA unilateral March 14, 2014 announcement.

Two parts in the charter seem to be critical for the stability of the 
Internet community and technology:

1. "In the case of the elements of the IANA function concerning the 
IETF protocol registries, it is likely that the existing 
well-documented practices will continue and no or little new activity 
will be required." This is something that contradicts the RFC 6852 
assessment of digital world reality. Only considering the status quo 
in a fundamentally changing situation, as the Chair (Leslie Daigle) 
assigned it to the WG, is either an deliberate (why?) ostrich policy 
or a hidden coordination with the authors of the change.

2. "Should proposals made by other communities regarding the 
transition of other IANA functions affect the IETF protocol parameter 
registries or the IETF, the WG may also review and comment on them." 
This wording is not only contemptuous of other communities, but also 
to all internet users since it permits the WG to not consider inputs 
from other stakeholders, to select the stakeholders it "could" listen 
to, and to not address the positive or negative impact of their 
positions on the common good. The Chair (Marc Blanchet) said that the 
WG would consider every proposal. It is necessary for the AD and 
Chairs to formally commit to what they will consider, comment on, and 
address regarding the announcements and/or proposals made by all 
other stakeholders.

Now, we are facing a problem of timing. At the ICANN's request, the 
January 15 milestone is a rough consensus over a complete protocol 
parameters registries document.

- The appeal limit date is November 8, 2014. I hope that I do not 
need that long (all of us want quick clarifications since we are 
engaged in status quo or innovative solution projects) but this may 
depend on today's virtual meeting.
- If the IESG responds negatively the same day, I could appeal the 
IAB until January 8, 2015.
- Again, the IAB could respond negatively the same day and stay ahead 
of the January 15 date.
- However, such fast responses would certainly give me good grounds 
to appeal ISOC.

This is why I suggest that we try to play this out reasonably, 
keeping political interests, the press, and sponsors aside. The 
difficulty that we are facing is simple to evaluate. The USG's and 
OECD's internet governance vision that the NTIA is trying to sneak-in 
was multilaterally and democratically defeated in Dubai. This vision 
is questioned by the users, when the WSIS has consensually declared 
that the information society was to be people [and not business or 
jurisdiction] centered, decisions are to be made on a 
multistakeholder (govs, business, civil society) basis, and the 
I*Society's mantra is that the internet is for everyone to use, 
innovate, experiment on, and deploy. The NTIA multistakeholder 
reduced the mutual recognition constraints in reference of  govs and 
lead users are diplomatically pious vows. They will do what they 
want. Datagrams do not really care about diplomatic announcements.

We know that there is a wide portion of the Internet users that 
disagrees with the NTIA's idea that ICANN is to protect them from 
their own Governments and who trust their own political and Defense 
national institutions (they pay for that through their taxes) to 
engage in active precautionary strategies, at least when public and 
private NSAs are concerned.

The IETF's job is not to judge whether these people are right or 
wrong. It is to technically ensure that its published set of protocol 
rules will best adapt to their needs and the resulting situational 
changes, and that these people trust them. Otherwise, such people and 
Govs will patch their own contingency plan and technical solutions 
(or have them ready). I know this well because I am, as you know, 
carrying that out myself, for my local non-profit Libre digital 
operator and my fellow independent involved etc. users.

  jfc

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 10:53:53 -0700

Jefsey,

Regarding strategies, I think we should skip attributing motives to them or the participants. The situation is really very simple, as the participants together have and will voice opinions about how to approach the task ahead. The IETF is an open organisation and we have a long track record of evolving the IANA services for protocol parameters. The NTIA change is just one step in that evolution.

Regarding proposals from other communities, the charter says it very clearly:

  Should proposals made by other communities regarding the
  transition of other IANA functions affect the IETF protocol parameter
  registries or the IETF, the WG may also review and comment on them.

And of course, since we are an open organisation, this does not limit who we listen to. It just specifies what other things besides our own proposal we need to review. Obviously, we are open for input with everything, including the transition proposal that awe are working.

Jari

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 17:14:18 +0200

At 19:53 06/10/2014, Jari Arkko wrote:
>And of course, since we are an open organisation, this does not 
>limit who we listen to. It just specifies what other things besides 
>our own proposal we need to review. Obviously, we are open for input 
>with everything, including the transition proposal that awe are working.

Dear Jari,

Thank you for your response. An open organization in a changing 
context can suffer from it or catalyze it, more over in acting at the 
proprer time. Let me review this.

The past context

The IETF is a voluntary standardization organization that is supposed 
to adhere to its own RFC 6852 "Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for 
Standards". ICANN is a US Government, non-profit contractor for 
making available the IETF IANA parameters and its own IANA names and 
numbers under the US Government oversight that also contracts to 
Verisign the permanent availability of the names (root) reference file.

The US Government legislation concerning the packet switching 
network, FCC operational licenses, and international data relations 
agreements predates by several years the creation of the Internet, as 
the internetting of the ARPANET system, which connected to the 
international packet switch services (IPSS) network in 1984.

This means that:

1. the network can economically, politically, technically, and 
legally operate without  the IETF, ICANN, and the IANA. They are only 
our today's way to attend needs that belong to the network technology 
and its governance evolution.

2. Since their inception in 1986 and 1998, each of them has always 
existed within the sole US Government oversight framework. They 
benefited from the international mutual recognition of that framework 
to enter into some agreements with international organizations, such 
as ITU, ISO, WIPO, etc. and developed their external, internal, and 
mutual practices under that sole umbrella.

This context dies and that umbrella closes on September 30, 2015.

The new context

What will remain will only be:

1) the world digital ecosystem communications infrastructure owned by 
local network providers and its use by billions of people under the 
contractual private terms that they bilaterally signed, and the World 
Communications International Treaty (WCIT) that the US Government has 
not signed.

2) private agreements and contracts between two US private 
organizations (ISOC and ICANN) specializing in a kind of usage 
(TCP/IP with a single DNS root, IANA, IPv4/6 addressing schemes) of 
that infrastructure

3) public affirmations produced by these organizations (RFCs in the 
case of IETF, and ICPs and AoC in the case of ICANN) to which people 
and corporations may refer in their own products, operations, and 
mutual contracts, subject to their (IETF Trust and ICANN) IPRs, under 
terms that are still to adapt to the conjunction of the "standard 
paradigm affirmation", the ICANN community Montevideo statement, and 
the NTIA announcement (as discussed by this WG).

4) the network of private bilateral contracts weaved by ICANN within 
the ICANN/NTIA "IN" DNS Class management framework. No one knows the 
market value of a domain name in that class after September 30, 2015 
(can increase as being famous, or lose value as being a few among a 
broad offer/private offer).

Any response, position, or question including the terms "obvious" 
and/or "of course" instead of accountable commitments bound to 
international law is, therefore, void and only leads to distrust of 
its author and the organization that he/she might represent or chair 
as being outdated or inadequate.

The IETF a pain or an help?

As a Libre and small operator, directly accountable to its user 
members, I can freely and responsibly raise the problem that I share 
with Govs, new technologies, incumbents operators, newcomers, and 
lead users. Why not give a chance to the IETF to document what is not 
"just one step" on "a long track record of evolving the IANA services"?

The WG/IANAPLAN Chair (Leslie Daigle) has clearly indicated that this 
has not been the IETF intent so far, unless the IESG decides 
otherwise. This is why there is a need to ask the IESG first if it 
wants to stay outside of the multistakeholder loop, and possibly make 
sure that it is the whole IETF position in asking the IAB.

If someone does not do it prior to 11/8 we probably have three options:

- an alternative root situation development (cf. ICANN/ICP-3 as the 
document of reference) leading to a ***possible*** technological 
breakthrough or to a ***possible*** mess.
- the emergence of a use/high level layers-oriented IETF equivalent. 
It will most probably take time.
- an ITU solution discussed within the WCIT framework. An interesting 
consequence of the NTIA initiative.

The RFC 6852 tactical opportunity

I also want to emphasize that, at this time, RFC 6852 is still 
sufficiently new for:
- its sole economic demand orientation to be accepted,
- which should help a fast and simple enough refoundation debate.

Further on, its ultimate innovation decision track, by economic power 
dominance over inter-global community competition, will disappear as 
people, cultural, political, military and many other demands, 
priorities, and R&D capacities become considered.

The responsibility is yours as the AD and as the IETF Chair.

jfc