Subject: [Ianaplan] one final last call comment on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:13:08 +0100

The current draft contains the following statement:

   >>>
   >>> An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's
   >>> proposal, including a description of areas of contention or
   >>> disagreement.
   >>>

   IETF Response: To be completed as the process progresses.

Obviously this needs to get filled in.  Jari and I are working on
doing just that.  This will be documentary in nature, much like the
shepherd write-up.

Eliot

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:45:19 +0100

>doing just that.  This will be documentary in nature, much like the
I certainly welcome Adrian Farrel's points as I share his support of 
RFC 6852 (with the restriction concerning its technical 
accountability framework). Everything which will make this document 
clearer and more in line with the currently identified 
standardization paradigm is extremely welcome.

In addition, I already underlined the shepherd write-up is 
uncomplete, as it does not mention my intent to appeal an IESG 
approbation of the intended RFC, if it did not include as a clear 
section of a disclaimer by IESG or/and an IAB, or/and an ISOC

A. regarding the ultimate nature of this text I consider as a double 
IAB abdication (if there is a real IETF consensus about it, people 
are entitled to see it printed):

1. of its leading role and responsibility in the internet governance 
cross-accountability framework (the reason of my appeal concering RFC 
6852 delayed by the NTIA annoucement)
2. obliging internet users (IUsers) to distrust the NTIA plans and 
technically migrate to DNS zones outside of the ICANN oversight 
without the sufficient prelimnary guidance of the IAB they are entitled to.

B. regarding its violations of the charter:

1. as a letter to an ICANN group rather than an IETF statement.
2. its lack of consideration of the IUWG contribution at: 
http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.03.pdf

jfc

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:50:38 -0500

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:45:19PM +0100, Jefsey wrote:
> In addition, I already underlined the shepherd write-up is uncomplete, as it
> does not mention my intent to appeal an IESG approbation of the intended
> RFC, if it did not include as a clear section of a disclaimer by IESG or/and
> an IAB, or/and an ISOC

That is not incomplete.  Stated intentions that have not actually
produced any action are not, in fact, evidence that needs to be
considered at all.  As a general rule, I do not believe that possible
future actions by someone constitute evidence about the state of
affairs in the present.  The shepherd write-up is supposed to reflect
the state of the WG's actual consensus, not the state of any WG's
consensus in any possible world.

> http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.03.pdf

That contribution was considered by the WG, in that some people who
are participants in the WG said they read it or tried to.  None of the
responses on the mailing list suggested it caused any rethinking of
the text.  Some participants said they didn't understand it.  Others
said it was irrelevant to the WG's work.

The shepherd write-up does not have to mention everything anyone ever
said about a document, because if an observation did not produce any
appreciable effect on the WG's discussion then it cannot be taken to
be a point of serious consideration by the WG.  The IESG knows where
the WG archives are; if they want a blow-by-blow review of the WG's
discussions, they can read those archives.  The write-up is instead
intended to provide the IESG with the context necessary to understand
WG consensus.  I do not believe that the contribution you refer to
there had any effect whatsoever on WG consensus.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 04:13:05 +0100

Dear Andrew,

I fully understand that you are defending the interests of your 
fellow employees. You will accept that I am defending the interests 
of my fellow IUsers.

Unfortunately, you accepted to be the shepherd of a document making 
the IETF decision on a point you disagree we should agree.

My remarks are interspersed.

At 17:50 15/12/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> uncomplete, as it

This seems to be in contradiction with the RFC 4858 letter and spirit.

>the text.

This should be mentioned since it is part of the charter and a 
Chair's commitment.

>Some participants said they didn't understand it.  Others

I hope this was intended to purposely hurt Libre's contributors.

These co-authors of this effort have actually read this:
- as despising - not encouraging an internet user cooperation with the IETF,
- as a leading business competitor's fear of their permissionless 
innovation rights and plans. They thank you for the free market 
study! I am more reserved: I just do not understand you – except if 
you consider me and the independent users as your competition? I felt 
there were plenty of room for all on the internet?

After the unfortunate cut-off dates of the WG mishaps, they feel that 
I did not have to publish our draft as an I_D. Not making it subject 
to the non-CC BCP-78 proprietary license...  We are a small team. I 
am not going to split from them.

>discussions, they can read those archives.

OK. Now you are laughing at IESG. Look, I am not interested in the 
inter/internal ICANN - IAB - IESG - IETF rifts. As an IUser I am 
interested in a working Internet we can use. With your wording here I 
am sorry to say that you have by yourself:

- taken the responsibility of the DNS technology and governance fork 
that I tried to prevent for years. We are just tired of these useless 
non productive tussles.
- definitely sparked yourself an architectural competition to your 
multimillion dollar DNS corporation.

Let's be candid. I am not aware that anyone else formally announced 
an appeal. So why take the risk of playing it low key?

Or, would it be because the Charter's Milestones will require the 
RFC-Editor accepts to by-pass the rules and publish a document that 
will be under appeal? Sorry this is not our IETF.  Press and 
historians know where to read about the RFC Editor practice, under 
Jon Postel, in such cases.

Or, would it be because the NTIA only spoke of the DNS and that to 
protect the "unique authoritative root" golden fairy tale that the 
ICANN and I*core "communities"  complicate the transition issue in 
discussing it as if the IANA was relinquishing the whole IANA 
oversight? Since RIRs consider addresses as their monopolistic 
revenue source, and ICANN and many here are unsure about the CLASS 
"IN" names monopoly, many would like, for a long, to merge the two 
monopolies before NDN and ION/IoT take off and the MYCANN and GOVCANN 
plug-ins interfere with the CORPCANN-add-ons.

>The write-up is instead

This is a well stated evaluation of the importance given by an IETF 
and a business leader pundit to the contribution of FLOSS community 
members, internet users, and non-I*core stakeholders. This will 
permit my appeal to raise the additional question of conflict of 
interests with internet users in the IETF standardization business 
process, and who are the network stakeholders from an NTIA/ISOC point 
of view. Two matters which will definitely justify the appeal to be 
escalated to ISOC.

Andrew, I have tried to make everyone cooperating with me respect the 
IETF Tao, so far. I am sorry that you decided to cross the limits and 
illustrate the obsolete and unsecure "one single authoritative root" 
lobby's bias. This definitely shows me that I was wrong all along in 
trusting IAB: IUsers cannot trust the IAB anymore. We must look 
elsewhere for a secure, trusted, and reliable use of the global 
catenet that we pay for.

That's too bad. But this is real life.

We need a better, cheaper, people mastered, more flexible, more 
reliable, and cross accountable internet than the one you want to 
sell us. And I am afraid we will get it. I hoped we would cooperate: 
I discover that you want to compete, including within the IETF.

I am dismayed. However, thank you for clarifying my illusions.

jfc

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 01:13:57 -0500

[many cc:s trimmed]

M. Morfin,

I will not dignify your unsubstantiated smears about me with a
response.  But a couple items in your note do require a reply.

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 04:13:05AM +0100, Jefsey wrote:

> Unfortunately, you accepted to be the shepherd of a document making the IETF
> decision on a point you disagree we should agree.

I'm sorry, but the shepherd does not make any "IETF decision".  The
shepherd runs the document through the process.  Consensus is still
determined by the chairs.

> This seems to be in contradiction with the RFC 4858 letter and spirit.

I don't know why you say that, but perhaps indicating specific text in
RFC 4858 that I have violated would help me.

> I hope this was intended to purposely hurt Libre's contributors.

[I read your "not" from the other message in this.]  It was not, of
course.  I am sorry if it is hurtful to people who worked on that
contribution, but I believe it is my responsibility to report the
remarks from the WG as I understand them.  I think the archives will
indicate that what I said is true.

> OK. Now you are laughing at IESG.

I am not laughing at the IESG; I am rather trying to make their burden
lighter.  I do not believe I misrepresented anything that occurred in
the WG, and if you think I did I should like very much to know what it
is.  I have stated why I did not include a reference to your
particular comment.  I _also_, note, did not include any reference to
particular comments I made during the WG efforts; that includes not
mentioning any of the times where I did not agree with the WG's
conclusions.  The shepherd report does not include every single thing
that anyone ever disagreed with, but only those cases about which
there was substantial disagreement.  Your contribution -- which
admittedly might have got rather more attention if it had been
submitted to the I-D repository in the usual way -- had for practical
purposes no effect on the WG's discussions.  I don't see why it needs
to be mentioned at all in any report.

> Let's be candid. I am not aware that anyone else formally announced an
> appeal. So why take the risk of playing it low key?

There is one, and only one, way to "formally" announce an appeal, and
that is to file it.  Please, go ahead if you care to.  But until you
do, your "formal" announcement is of no more consequence to the WG or
to the IETF than an announcement that you shall have toast and tea at
breakfast.

Sincerely,

Andrew Sullivan

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 01:11:57 +0100

At 06:59 19/12/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>M Morfin,
>
>On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 02:10:02AM +0100, JFC Morfin wrote:
> > - Andrew is honestly speaking for his business community 
> (<http://dyn.com/blog/andrew-sullivan-ietf-iab-internet-architecture-board-dns/>http://dyn.com/blog/andrew-sullivan-ietf-iab-internet-architecture-board-dns/)
> > and the people who entrusted him with their livenood.
>
>For the record, I am not, and I thank you to stop promoting falsehoods
>about my intentions.

Dear Andrew,
I thank you for this clarification.

- I was, therefore, wrong in presuming that you were technically 
trustworthy in the way that ***I*** understand technical 
trustworthiness in the RFC 6852 paradigmatic wake.
- rather than in the RFC 3935 you seem to consider as the reference 
and ***I*** read as no longer fully appropriate.

This means that I definitely did not understand you: my sincere 
apologies. No offense was intended. To the contrary.

At 07:13 19/12/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>response.

Again no offense intended.

Things only get to be tuned when adjusting to a cultural transition 
from a doxa formation open process by "rough consensus" (RFC 3935) to 
an omnistakeholder emergence by "broad consensus" (RFC 6852).

>   But a couple items in your note do require a reply.

This is more interesting indeed as it concerns this very cultural transition.

>determined by the chairs.

You are absolutely correct. I wrote that the ***document*** makes the 
IETF decision, after a rough consensus process. You are both the 
shepherd who runs the document through that process but at the same 
time one of the parties. This puts you in an unfortunate position. 
This is something that may now happen more often in a permissionless 
omnistakeholder context. The IAB should take this as an experience 
and avoid that kind of COI in the future.

>RFC 4858 that I have violated would help me.

The preceding point means that RFC 4858 should be one of the many 
RFCs to adapt to the modern paradigm for standards.

>indicate that what I said is true.

Again, there is nothing personal.

What is concerned is the now inadequate IETF standardization process 
in the post RFC 6852 and post March 14, 2014 announcement context 
required by that RFC. Moreover since the matter at hand is the way 
the IETF is adapting to the change.

I note that this can only be a recursive process since you cannot 
document something you have not fully experienced yet and you do not 
fully agree with (yet?).

>lighter.

I was trying to take it lightly. Do you fully realize that, since 
their burden is to decide, it means that one way or another you are 
actually trying to influence their decision?

>I do not believe I misrepresented anything that occurred in
>is.

I told about this already. You did not indicate that I intended to 
file an appeal. Jari did not hide it. However, I fully understand 
that explaining it and stating why is not that easy since it concerns 
a new standardization general paradigm, the document you are 
shepherding, is attempting to adapt the IETF to via … a status quo.

>I have stated why I did not include a reference to your
>submitted to the I-D repository in the usual way

This IS a VERY good point.

1. my initial move was to submit one, actually two, I-Ds. This was 
blocked by the cut-off.
2. then my Libre group made the point that I was introducing our 
competing permissionless innovation and that using an IETF I-D was 
putting it under the BCP 78 terms, i.e. not a Libre CC license.

This shows that the "IETF usual way" is not adapted to a multi-SDO 
omni-stakeholder permissionless innovation coopetition. A non-IETF 
Trust stream should be considered.

>  -- had for practical

Because what is actually discussed through the I-D is the why you 
should see the need/or not to mention it.

I did not contribute in order to influence the WG's position. I did 
so in order to be able to question ISOC: is an IETF culture where my 
kind of contribution has no influence, the kind of culture they wish 
for the IETF to have, in our new post-6852/NTIA announcement context?

Again, there is nothing personal here. There is a cultural 
fundamental evolution: this I-D in the RFC 6852 and NTIA announcement 
wake is creating an IETF fork. This fork is between the RFC 3935 IETF 
and the post RFC 6852/Dubai/NTIA announcement/NMI RFC 3935bis IETF.

There are many other implied stakeholders who would like/need to 
understand about the RFC 3935bis propositions. Otherwise, the 
technical concertance (see above) that will emerge will take more 
time and will not directly include the IAB/IETF, clean room 
redesigning/morphing that the internet has engaged.

We both are bound by the Chairs' decision to read the Charter as the 
mission to address that fork in changing nothing. This risks 
transforming a regular evolution into a stupid conflict. IMHO, this 
is what the NTIA asked the ICANN to help prevent.

I am sorry again for the misreading. I see that you have removed the 
Dyn Inc. quote I gave the URL. IMHO all this was perfectly correct; 
we live in a real world and as the internet becomes more and more a 
key part of this word, the IETF MUST adapt to this world, not the 
world to the IETF.

jfc