Subject: [Ianaplan] Taking a step toward the IANA Transition

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 15:38:27 +0100

Jari and I have put together a short blog on where we are.  This working
group in particular should be pleased with its work.

http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/01/taking-a-step-towards-iana-transition/

Eliot

---

From: "Lynn St.Amour" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 13:39:09 -0500

Hi Eliot,

agree everyone should be very pleased with the work;  and this is a good article.

Best,
Lynn

On Jan 8, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:29:13 +0100

>http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/01/taking-a-step-towards-iana-transition/

Jari and Eliot,

I do not understand. Is the draft to be published as an RFC, yes or 
no? This is not immaterial: since if it is to be published I only 
have until March 6, 2015 to file an appeal, of which the matter is 
now clarified by the eventual IESG choice of a US leadership on the 
IETF technology that you made official yesterday. Lynn St-Amour is 
rightly pleased. Many are most probably not.

You fully understand that the sentence "When ready, they will submit 
the final proposal to the NTIA. The NTIA must then consider and 
approve the proposal", being co-signed by the IETF Chair, is of a 
purely political nature and cannot have anything to do with any 
technical norm concerning my and people's personal Catenet properties.

Therefore, there was a global 
IETF. 
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/01/taking-a-step-towards-iana-transition/ 
changed that: you have now formally published that it forked to a USIETF.

One of the IETF core values was to responsibly decide on an 
"omnistakeholder" rough consensus basis. If the NTIA is now to first 
approve its propositions, why not China, Russia, Germany, UK, France, 
etc.? And/or Google, Apple, Xerox, NSA, etc.?

There can only be one single authoritative internet technical 
sovereignty: http://iana.arpa. It owns this sovereignty because:

- there must be a "Respectful cooperation between standards 
organizations, whereby each respects the autonomy, integrity, 
processes, and intellectual property rules of the others" (RFC 6852).
-  "Standards processes are transparent and opportunities exist to 
appeal decisions",
-  Users and people may uniquely identify it and freely adhere to it, 
thereby forming the Internet global community.

The RFC 2026 Internet standards process has not thus far required 
anyone to "submit the final proposal to the NTIA, for the NTIA to 
consider and approve", unless the NTIA is the new IAB's name as the 
"Network Technical Independent Authority".

Perhaps I am wrong: this was probably before, when "Standards 
activities [were] not exclusively dominated by any particular person, 
company, [] interest group [or nation]" (cf. RFC 6852).

I appealed RFC 6852 because it did not clarify who its ultimate 
referent was. We now know that it is the USG. I beg to disagree, 
however, because nations, like the internet, form neither a 
hierarchical nor a decentralized but rather a distributed network. 
You crossed the border between technology and policy, between what is 
to be technically and what some may want to be: thi way you 
unfortunately but definitely put the IETF technology in jeopardy and 
politically fragmented the internet after RFC 6852 tried to patch its 
technical fragmentation risks. I frankly doubt this is what Lawrence 
E. Strickling wanted the world to perceive.

Sorry.
jfc

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:00:43 +0100

Hi JFC,
On 1/9/15 2:29 PM, Jefsey wrote:
> no? This is not immaterial: since if it is to be published I only have
> until March 6, 2015 to file an appeal, of which the matter is now
> clarified by the eventual IESG choice of a US leadership on the IETF
> technology that you made official yesterday. Lynn St-Amour is rightly
> pleased. Many are most probably not.

The IESG has taken its decision, and the document stands approved.  It
will be published as an RFC.

> technical norm concerning my and people's personal Catenet properties.

If you are referring to the blog, of course it is not normative to our
processes, but informative to the community.

>
> Therefore, there was a global IETF.
> http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/01/taking-a-step-towards-iana-transition/ changed
> that: you have now formally published that it forked to a USIETF.

I don't know who the USIETF is, but this organization is known as the IETF.

> etc.? And/or Google, Apple, Xerox, NSA, etc.?

It was the NTIA who sought information through ICANN.  If China or
anyone else cares to ask us a question, we can determine how best to
answer them just as we did in this case.

Eliot

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 16:33:36 +0100

>will be published as an RFC.

Thank you, for all your clarifications.

1) The report of Jari was confusing.

>  fully understand that the sentence "When ready, they will submit

2) Absolutely.
This was the missing information which motivated my initial appeal.
This is now formally clarified.
Everyone is now able to best decide for themselves and for their users.

>herefore, there was a global IETF.
> > 

3) Loud and clear:
     - you do not know (yet) who is USIETF-leader (Jari or Lawrence?)
     - you confirm that this organization is currently known as the IETF.

     Simpler to call it USIETF as there is AmerICANN allready.
     Situation seems to be under regular/legal US control.

>answer them just as we did in this case.

Still confusing:
- NTIA informed ICANN they could transfer some CLASS "IN" oversight.
- ICANN overdid it, hearing "IANA" instead.
- an USIETF RFC frees ICANN from its accountability to IAB/IETF.

IESG/IAB/ISOC and NTIA plain language confirmation advisable.
No problem. This will be the purpose of my appeal. Alles klar.

The user community can now constructively build a stable IETF/ICANN 
accountability framework in this clarified context.
Thank you for that.
Best.

jfc