Subject: Re: [iucg] [IAB] Response to my appeal

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 14:25:32 -0400

Dear M. Morfin,

On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 02:50:28AM +0200, JFC Morfin wrote:

> first and last one, which I perceive as incorrect. This, therefore, calls
> for an appeal to the IAB that I will forward before June 16, 2015.
[…]
> I note that your response, its implications, and my subsequent appeal to the
> IAB will be of some influence on the French legal and constitutional debate

As I understand those sentences, your note (which was copied to the
IAB, which is why I'm asking just for the sake of certainty) does not
itself represent your appeal, but rather represents an expression of
an intention to mount an appeal.  We therefore should not take your
note as the filing of an appeal (which would cause us to start
evaluating immediately).  Right?

Best regards,
Andrew Sullivan
as IAB Chair

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:21:54 +0200

Dear Chair,

Right. You are correct: the way the IESG states that they read RFC 
2026 is, for me, in contradiction with RFC 6852, which I read as

1) insisting on the importance of a permissionless innovative 
coopetition between global communities' architectures whatever its 
formal status but
2) not adequately addressing the appeal process and ultimate referent 
(this is why I appealed RFC 6852: my escalation to ISOC was 
interrupted by the NTIA announcement).

I consider that Jari has clearly inferred and published, from some 
steganographic entries (?), either in the Charter or in the IANAPLAN 
document that the final decision shall be made by the NTIA.

My role is then similar: it is to help in determining and publishing if
*  a non-NTIA bound "Relationnels Libres" global community
*  the various political/legal/societal global communities
can also read in the IANAPLAN that they can decide and deploy their 
own technical final orientations,  without conflicting with the IESG 
NTIA/US industries orientations or with the BRICS' global 
communities. Will there be new, other global communities based upon 
new architectures and technologies?  Is there a bias or a misreading 
by the IESG?

This is why, in a first step at the IESG appeal layer, I focused on 
the IETF/IESG mismanagement of non-affinity group propositions in 
using my own example. At the IAB layer, I will focus on the RFC 6852 
architectonical aspects in order to understand what the seemingly 
NTIA/ICANN focused position means for non-ICANN and non-US citizens 
and interests.

If the IAB was unable to provide the responses that these global 
communities need, this would mean that the procedures described in 
RFC 2026 were inadequate within the RFC 6852 framework. The RFC 2026 
then indicates that guidance should be requested from the Internet 
Society Board of Trustees.

The target remains the same: to understand how the RFC 6856 
incumbents intend to relate with the non-US NTIA/industry global 
communities in the IETF/IAB/ISOC area. I hope it will be on a 
cooperating rather than on a conflicting basis.

The IESG's inability to cope with the terminology of some common 
requirements and innovative open concepts added to the lack of the 
disambiguating responses that I have asked makes me unable to address 
that point at this stage, and unable to investigate the way to 
cooperatively proceed.

This is embarrassing, since the NTIA targeted date is September 30, 
2015. Failsafe procedures need to start being implemented and 
experimented now. I will keep proposing to my global community to 
formalize and start deploying its "intertesting" projects along the 
"ICANN/ICP-3 (5) Experimentation" guidelines.

Best,

Jfc

NB. I am sorry for the delay in responding, due to a personal illness 
and the need to concert with "Relationnels Libres" members.

At 20:25 18/04/2015, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>Dear M. Morfin,
>