Subject: [Ianaplan] CWG proposal up for public comment

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:38:05 -0400

Dear colleagues,

The ICANN cross-community working group on IANA stewardship (the "CWG"
or sometimes "CWG-IANA" or more often "CWG-Stewardship") has its
proposal up for public comment.  The public comment page is at
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en.
I encourage people to read the document (it's not short) and send
comments if they have them.

Best regards,

Andrew (speaking, as usual, for myself)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:52:38 +0200

>comments if they have them.

Interesting how there is no mention of the OIO relations. (Other IANA 
Operators).
jfc

---

From: Seun Ojedeji <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:07:02 +0100

Hi Jefsey,

I understand its a proposal by the names community only and not the ICG
proposal

Regards

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Jefsey <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>[email-masked]
<[email-masked]>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:08:31 -0400

> Interesting how there is no mention of the OIO relations. (Other IANA

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you mean other registries for
protocol parameters I'd expect that to be out of scope for the names
community.

What other IANA operators are there for the names community?

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:48:10 +0200

At 16:07 24/04/2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>Hi Jefsey,
>I understand its a proposal by the names community only and not the 
>ICG proposal
>
>Interesting how there is no mention of the OIO relations. (Other 
>IANA Operators).
>jfc

>What other IANA operators are there for the names community?

My point is addressed in the questions of my appeal the IESG has not 
considered necessary to address. What I consider as increasingly 
disturbing and whish to see approched in the best manner  (I try to 
adopt a median position acceptable to most) in my IAB appeal.

Let say that, independently from the political bargains that commands 
the transition plan, I wish to keep as stable internet for every of 
us, however it is likely it will not be the same one (because - cf. 
RFC 6852 - it will include at least two "global community" coalitions 
: those who consider they are bound by NTIA and FCC 
positions/decisions and those who dont).

Each of these coalitions will necessary have a few (hopefully) 
different visions. This will translate into the need for them to have 
their own version of the IANA. One should be managed as an ICANN 
affiliate and the other is still open. IMHO two other ones would make 
sense: one by ITU and one by the Libre. (I purposely use the term 
Libre, and "Relationnels Libres" in French to make clear it is not 
the open source, but an open network approach which corresponds to 
the  Vint Cerf IEN 48 objective second montivation. This 
ICANN(PTI)/ITU/Libre IANA Operators would represent the states (ITU), 
business (ICANN) and civil society (Libre) approches and permit some 
of the multistakeholderism both NTIA and ITU desire. I suppose that 
the Libre community is young enough for accepting that its desired 
omnistakeholderism can be delayed, as long as this is the way it will 
internally proceed.

This scheme, as eventually devised by Vint in July 1978, is the one I 
engaged into in 1977 with Tymnet and some European PTT and the French 
government plan (Transpac and Minitel) prevented us to merge with 
Louis Pouzin's Cyclade. So, my interest is in making sure that - 
whatever the States (US, Europe, BRICS) may do, negociate, fight, 
etc. the civil society may keep a stable service eith from PTI and/or 
from Libre, as I tested it through the Dot-Root community project 
(along ICANN still valide ICP/3 testing terms) 13 years ago.

The scheme I campaign for - and this is why I stayed with the IETF 
for all these years, as well as opposing some of the Unicode 
consortium influence, (while most of the Libre and State oriented 
people did not) - is one I think acceptable on both sides and 
possibly also on the third one (if ITU is to enter the game). It 
could even accomodate more new commers (probably a small galaxy of 
them if people feel it is not correctly planned). It is the 
experimentation scheme, along ICANN experimentation rules. 
Permissionless innovation/projects as long as they keep being 
experimental first.

In here, and in my appeal, I made clear that I will experiment the 
DNS CLASS "FL" (for Free/Libre) along with the principles documented 
by the DNSA. So far, this makes little difference with the IANA PTI 
Version, but it will help keeping peacefull the varions CLASS "IN" 
backup solutions and the support of the various "MYCANN" 
configurations or plug-ins. IMHO, if they do not foresee some 
fighting, many would be candidate will drop interest.

Obviously the most significant jurisdictionnal disagreements or 
extensions will probably happen in the naming area. This is why I 
think the ICANN "name community" is the predominant contributor, also 
because ICANN is perceived as the name-space commercial hijacker by 
many States and Civil/Local society members. And eventually because 
it is the sole interlocutor the NTIA considers in its announcement. 
The NTIA only considers the DNS. ICANN considers the IANA.

It will also be a way to test ICANN. If it will considers its peers 
as equals; and if it wants or do not want to respect a 
multistakeholder approach for itself, or it considers that the TLDs 
and RIRs are the stakeholders, and it is itself the Queen of Borgs.

All this is in five months now.
jfc

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:05:35 -0400

Hi,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 05:48:10PM +0200, Jefsey wrote:

> considered necessary to address. What I consider as increasingly disturbing
> and whish to see approched in the best manner  (I try to adopt a median
> position acceptable to most) in my IAB appeal.

You have not, unless I have overlooked something important, actually
yet filed an appeal with the IAB.  Right?  That is, you have stated an
intention to appeal, but haven't filed it.  (You talk of "my IAB
appeal", but I presume that you just elided the "forthcoming" or
something like that.)  If you believe you have filed your appeal,
please let me know immediately, because if so I haven't seen it.

(I won't comment futher as you seem to be suggesting your argument is
germaine to an appeal you intend to file, and I don't want to disturb
that discussion.)

Best regards,

Andrew 

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]