Subject: [Ianaplan] numbers community plan

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 18:26:01 -0500

Hello,
 happy new year!

 Following up the note John Curran sent to this list (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01482.html) with the pointer to the draft numbers community plan (https://www.nro.net/news/first-draft-proposal-of-the-internet-number-community-for-the-iana-stewardship-coordination-group),  are there any issues that we believe the IAB should consider flagging and discussing?  For the purposes of this WG's discussion, the focus should be scoped to issues that might affect the IETF protocol parameter registries, not general opinions on the numbers proposal [1].

Marc&Leslie, co-chairs.

[1] From our charter:

"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."

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 14:19:24 +0100

At 00:26 08/01/2015, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>happy new year!
>Following up the note John Curran sent to this list 
>(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01482.html) 
>  with the pointer to the draft numbers community plan 
>(https://www.nro.net/news/first-draft-proposal-of-the-internet-number-community-for-the-iana-stewardship-coordination-group), 
>are there any issues that we believe the IAB should consider 
>flagging and discussing?  For the purposes of this WG's discussion, 
>the focus should be scoped to issues that might affect the IETF 
>protocol parameter registries, not general opinions on the numbers 
>proposal [1].

Dear Marc and Leslie,

I wish a Happy New Year to the two splitting strata: catenet and 
internet. I have tried for years to jointly accommodate their 
parallel evolution under the IETF. The life of this WG has led me to 
crash create the IUWG.net to stay in line with RFC 6852 ***and*** 
independent from the BCP 78 Internet license. The Catenet, i.e. the 
people's global common substructure of the different RFC 6852 "global 
communities"' technologies, calls for an OpenUse approach that is to 
be explored, determined, and documented.

I identify two needs.

1. for the IETF family to publicly acknowledge that the situation 
that some of them have described through the RFC 6852 is not a 
multistakeholder situation led by the I*core but rather a 
permissionless innovation omnistakeholder configuration. This means 
that the I*core must identify itself as a global community among 
other Catenet user global communities. This calls for at least two things:

-  ISOC to state it in one way or another (and this is where an 
appeal seems necessary)
-  and a single interfacing IETF technology window to be given to the 
world, which I think is to be "http://iana.arpa".

2. The people's Catenet multitechnology support capacity is to be 
discussed and documented, i.e. the way each CPU/OS/fringe/edge 
communicates is to be supported by the various end to end 
technologies, including the Internet ones (IPv4/v6), Rosettanet, NDN, 
SDNs, Ethernet, Libre's interplus, etc.

Today, the IETF, IAB, IEEE, ISOC, W3C, and others have jointly  but 
still incompletely accepted this situation. ICANN has not: they want 
to use their CLASS "IN" control, IP address influence, and their US 
jurisdiction to control the Catenet.

Jari is probably right in not necessarily wishing to publish the 
Ianaplan document as an RFC. That plan is about the way the IETF 
wants the IAOC to negotiate the ICANN http://iana.arpa accountability 
framework. I disapprove of the text in part but I have no reason to 
appeal the decision of asking it.

In such a case, I will document a Catenet oriented openuse I_D 
including the ICANN/ICP-3 rules and the proposition of a joint WG on 
a multitechnology oriented IANA protocol. If it is published by the 
RFC Editor, the situation will be clarified and I could adhere to 
OpenStand. If it is not, then a formal appeal to IESG/IAB/ISOC will 
be necessary, but it will be on simpler/clearer grounds for everyone.

Best,

jfc

---

From: Suzanne Woolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 15:12:32 -0500

Marc,

> happy new year!

And to you!

> Following up the note John Curran sent to this list (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01482.html) with the pointer to the draft numbers community plan (https://www.nro.net/n…

It seems to me that there's some language in the numbers community plan that this group might want to think about:

The relevant section begins on page 10 and is titled: "III.A.2. IPR related to the provision of the IANA services stay with the community"

The key words start at the end of page 10 and continue to the end of the section: 

"With regards to the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain it is the expectation of the RIR communities that both are associated with the IANA function and not with a particular IANA functions operator.  Identifying an organisation, not associated with an IANA operator, that holds these assets permanently will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected  at some point in the future.  It is the preference of the RIR communities that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity  independent of the IANA functions operator that will ensure these assets are used purposefully in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of all operational communities. From the RIR communities' perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role. The transfer of the IANA trademark and iana.org domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA functions, namely protocol parameters and names."

The consensus on the IPR issue in the WG as I understood it was that the WG wasn't instructing the IAOC/IAB to seek additional agreements about the iana.org name, but also was not ruling it out. So the current document doesn't really provide guidance on what to do if the IETF Trust is asked by other operational communities to accept the role hypothesized here, or to enter into a conversation about possible terms for doing so.

Is there a need for such guidance from the WG?

best,
Suzanne

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:31:22 +0100

Hi Suzanne,

Speaking only for myself...

> (...)

> The consensus on the IPR issue in the WG as I understood it was that
> the WG wasn't instructing the IAOC/IAB to seek additional agreements
> about the iana.org <http://iana.org> name, but also was not ruling it
> out. So the current document doesn't really provide guidance on what
> to do if the IETF Trust is asked by other operational communities to
> accept the role hypothesized here, or to enter into a conversation
> about possible terms for doing so.
>

I hope it always helps those who are going to be engaged in the
discussions if smart people express their opinion.  In addition, it
seems that the IESG intended this WG to be the forum to review and
comment on proposals from other communities when they wrote into the
charter the following:

> 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.[1]
Obviously IPR can impact us.  We should stay focused on the impact to
the IETF.  Discussions that don't impact the IETF seem better homed in
the other communities.

Eliot
[1]http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ianaplan/charter/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:36:42 +1300

Eliot,

Below...

> the IETF.  Discussions that don't impact the IETF seem better homed in

Correct, but if the IETF Trust is asked (as seems possible) to accept
IPR that affects the names and numbers communities as well as the IETF,
then they (the Trust) will need clear input from the IETF, since the
sole beneficiary of the Trust is "the IETF as a whole". (They will also
need legal and tax advice to be sure that they will not violate
the Trust Agreement and 501(c)(3) status.)

I think this WG would be the obvious sounding board for that discussion,
but there's not much point in crossing that bridge until we come to it,
i.e. a specific request is made to the Trust from outside the IETF.

    Brian

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:39:38 +0900

> i.e. a specific request is made to the Trust from outside the IETF.

Agreed.

I'd note that one reason that was brought up for not saying anything 
about the IETF Trust in the draft we worked on was that we didn't want 
to impose that on the other communities. At least for the numbers 
community, that obstacle clearly is out of the way.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:39:25 +0100

Comment at the end.

At 08:39 13/01/2015, Martin J. DÃ¼rst wrote:
>about the IETF Trust in the draft we worked on was that we didn't 
>want to impose that on the other communities. At least for the 
>numbers community, that obstacle clearly is out of the way.
>
>Regards,   Martin.

The BCP 78 USIETF Trust licence and IPRs being the main issue from a 
Libre's and Open Use perspective, this exchange does clarify the 
intent.  It frees from any obligations those who want the catenet and 
the internet to be public domain, i.e. omnistakeholder and 
independent from the laws and policy of every specific country.
jfc