Subject: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:20:09 -0500

Based on the working group last call comments and meeting, the co-chairs have come to conclusion that the working group have achieved rough concensus on the latest version of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response  (i.e. -07).  The shepherd is entering his writeup. So the co-chairs have asked the AD to move the document to the next step.

Regards, Marc&Leslie, co-chairs.

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:57:16 +0100

I note that section 3 of RFC 7282 states:

"The chair of a working group who is about to find that there is only rough
consensus is going to have to decide that not only has the working group
taken the objection seriously, but that it has fully examined the
ramifications of not making a change to accommodate it, and that the outcome
does not constitute a failure to meet the technical requirements of the
work. ... A valid justification needs to me [sic] made."

Therefore, I would request that the co-chairs provide a justification for
the conclusion that rough consensus has been achieved.

Thanks and best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Marc
> Blanchet
> Sent: mercredi, 26. novembre 2014 19:20
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Jari Arrko
> Subject: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step
>
>
> Based on the working group last call comments and meeting, the
> co-chairs have come to conclusion that the working group have
> achieved rough concensus on the latest version of
> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response  (i.e. -07).  The shepherd is
> entering his writeup. So the co-chairs have asked the AD to move
> the document to the next step.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:30:09 +0100

>the conclusion that rough consensus has been achieved.

Richard,

The way I see the things is rather simple.

Vint Cerf has initiated the Internet project with two objectives and 
a vision. The vision was a new definition of "locality", that one may 
now qualify of "networked glocality".

The first objective was to build its catenet, i.e. its transport 
stratum. The non completion of the second objective before the USA 
could swallow it was then discovered (due to architectural lacks vs. 
deployment advantages) as a national necessity. This has been taken 
care by the IETF and politically engineered by the USG in
- pushing for its technology to be used for the world digital 
ecosystem main value added network,
- using the ICANN single-root lie,
- and in keeping the whole thing subject to the1984 born statUS-quo strategy.

This was an exceptional process where the USG patched the involved 
global issues by transferring control from its Legislative branch's 
domestic/international FCC agency to its Executive NTIA agency. This 
exceptional situation has come to an end when Obama has directly 
directed the FCC on Internet neutrality domestic issues. Not the NTIA 
on global neutrality issues (we know why).

Now, time is about an IETF's deliverables 
domestic/industrial/international review. Feelings are mixed. 
Theoritically, the IETF has the leadership, and IAB the dominance for 
a simple reason: the network has to work. IAB is therefore 
responsible for the past and the future of the Internet. However, 
many are technologically unhappy (most did not know why, until 
Snowden's and FCC/Obama's help) and for others they are happy of the 
money they do.

Until August 22, 2012, responsibility was then with the IAB/ISOC. 
Since then it is to the community of technical communities addressing 
their community's economic requirements (cf. RFC 6852). Until a week 
ago responsibility for past and future internet issues was with the 
IETF. Russ  Housley's admonition for an hardened protocol stack makes 
the IETF only responsible for the future internet. The Chairs' rough 
consensus shows that among the true "IETF natives" the consensus is 
that the IETF is working for the future internet, but is not responsible.

The question you ask is the basis of my future appeal, once the IETF 
Last-Call has most probably confirmed this IETF hidden abdication.

My point will not be to change it, but to make sure that the IESG, 
and IAB, and ISOC, fully and publicly declare that they understand, 
accept and decide that this is what they mean.  Please note that this 
I_D is co-authored by the IAB Chair, former IETF Chair in 2012.

This is important because it will show there is no conflict calling 
for a fork; but an accepted seamless transition from 
datacommunications to metacommunications. The same as we had that 
transition in 1977 from telecommunications to datacommunications. I 
remember the surprise of the ITU people when I went there to adhere 
as an US Datacommunications Operator  :-).

jfc

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:51:39 -0500

> the conclusion that rough consensus has been achieved.

While the shepherd writeup is not to justify, the writeup that was recently submitted summarize it.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/shepherdwriteup/

Regards, Marc.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:17:02 +1300

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/shepherdwriteup/

Speaking as a process pedant, I would like to point out that
RFC 7282 is Informational, so that use of "needs" is not actually
a normative requirement of the standards process.

Also, the text Richard elided ends thus:

"...the chair must use their judgement in these cases.  What can't happen
   is that the chair bases their decision solely on hearing a large
   number of voices simply saying, "The objection isn't valid."  That
   would simply be to take a vote.  A valid justification needs to [be]
   made."

Now, that passive tense is a bit confusing, but to my eyes it refers
to the fact that the chair(s) should make a judgement about validity rather
than counting votes. Anyway, I believe that the paragraph in the writeup
that starts "There was a broad suggestion..." does justify the chairs'
judgement.

   Brian

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:23:05 -0500

> that starts "There was a broad suggestion..." does justify the chairs'

Certainly, for whatever it's worth, that was my intention.  My
understanding from the chairs was that in their judgement, the issue
was aired extensively, there were arguments on both sides, and the WG
appeared pretty strongly to coalesce around the text we actually have.
Moreover, while there were arguments on the other side, they were at
odds with the charter and the institutional practices of the IETF, and
therefore they were adequately answered.  I believe the shepherd
write-up says this.  If anyone thinks it does not, I will cheerfully
repeat these remarks in the IETF last call process.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 18:39:06 -0500

> the conclusion that rough consensus has been achieved.

There was one potentially significant concern raised in WG last call that 
was not accommodated - specifically adding a requirement for strengthened 
legal and contractual IANA arrangements for the post-NTIA period. The draft 
does doesn't preclude stronger legal/contractual measures, but it also does 
not note such as a specific requirement for future IANA arrangements.

Adding stronger legal/contractual arrangements as a requirement was discussed 
at length, and it was apparent that accommodating that change in the document 
would actually reduce the level of consensus due to the much higher support 
for the current text as well as concerns that the change would run contrary 
to existing IETF practices for handling of external agreements.

One might argue that the resulting draft does not meet the ICG response 
requirements (i.e. “Description of any legal framework requirements in the 
absence of the NTIA contract” per 'Section V. Transition Implications'), 
but transition implications are only required to be per the viewpoint of
the IETF community, and the proposed text already notes that "No major 
changes are required."

All in all, the determination of rough consensus by the WG chairs seems 
quite appropriate.

/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 02:34:20 +0100

>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/shepherdwriteup/

As expected, this write-up fails to mention that I announced I will 
appeal the Draft. However, the author being the IAB Chair and the AD 
being the IETF Chair, I suppose they know it.

As I explained it, this appeal will not be hostile but will make 
particularly plain that the resulting RFC will be the conscious and 
formal consensus of the IETF participants, IAB and ISOC. This is 
because this WG and the ICANN debates made clear that no one wants to 
acknowledge the RFC 6852 consequences/pertinence, while it actually 
says the same things in reference to the IAB/IETF/RIRs/ICANN accountability.

Every of them is accountable, but to none. This may satisfy these 
status-qu'olders, but only them.
jfc

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:48:56 +0100

Please see below.

Thanks and best,
Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
To: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <[email-masked]>; "Leslie 
Daigle (TCE)" <[email-masked]>; "Jari Arrko" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step

> a normative requirement of the standards process.

Yes, the status of the RFC is Informational, and, as far as I can tell, that 
reflects its content, which is not normative.

However, I presume that the RFC does correctly describe best practices and 
so it does describe the process that should be followed.

> than counting votes.

That is also my understanding.

>Anyway, I believe that the paragraph in the writeup

>From my point of view, that is a description of what happened, not a 
justification for the decision.

I will be sending separately my comments on the writeup, but, again, it does 
not appear to me to be a justification.

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:52:53 +0100

Please see below.

Thanks and best,
Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Curran" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Jari 
Arkko" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step

> legal and contractual IANA arrangements for the post-NTIA period.

Yes.  And there was also another concern raised, namely a requirement that a 
legally binding document be developed, if, after legal analysis, it was 
found that the current MoU is not a legally binding document.

>The draft

I do appreciate your view (and that of others) that rough consensus was 
achieved, but I would still like to see the co-chairs justification for 
their decision.

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:07:13 +0100

Dear Marc,

Thank you for this, and please see comments below.

Best,
Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <[email-masked]>; "Jari Arrko" 
<[email-masked]>; "Leslie Daigle (TCE)" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step

> recently submitted summarize it.

Indeed.  That writeup appears to me to be a description of what happened, 
not a justification for the decision.

So I would still like to see a justification.

Further, I have some suggestions for the writeup itself, see below.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/shepherdwriteup/

I reproduce below the bits of the original for which I am suggesting 
changes, followed by the suggested change.

>There was a broad suggestion that the document should contain either
>much stronger statements of terms acceptable to the IETF, or else
>strong statements instructing the IAOC what terms to negotiate.

This is correct, but I propose to add at the end ", or else to ask that the 
MoU be replaced by a legally binding agreement reflecting the provisions of 
the NTIA-ICANN contract, if, after legal analysis, it was found that the 
current MoU is not a legally binding agreement."

>so it is difficult to know how the WG
>could have produced something incorporating this suggestion, even if
>it had wanted to.

That was a majority view, but there was a minority view.  So I suggest 
adding a new sentence at the end: "At least one participant was of the view 
that the mandate of the WG would have empowered it to produce something 
incorporating this suggestion."

>Two participants were sufficiently unhappy with the resulting draft,
>apparently in part because of the previous two decisions, that they
>requested their names be removed from the Acknowledgements section,
>despite their contributions to the discussion of the draft.

That does not reflect what I said.  For what concerns me, please use this 
text:  "One participant requested that his name be removed from the 
Acknowledgements section, because he was of the view that none of his 
substantive comments were refected in the final draft."

---

From: Milton L Mueller <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:23:38 +0000

> The draft does
> doesn't preclude stronger legal/contractual measures, but it also does not
> note such as a specific requirement for future IANA arrangements.

This is my understanding, too. The fact that the draft doesn't preclude these measures and has been modified to indicate that changes do need to be made post-NTIA is what ultimately makes the draft (roughly) acceptable to me.

> Adding stronger legal/contractual arrangements as a requirement was
> discussed at length, and it was apparent that accommodating that change in
> the document would actually reduce the level of consensus 

Without commenting on the validity or lack thereof of the arguments against more specific legal/contractual requirements, I think this also accurately reflects the situation.

Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org