Subject: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 09:17:50 -0700

Dear IANAPLAN WG,

The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling <http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf> that included the following text:

"Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.”

The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate.

If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome.

Thanks,
Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 13:33:33 -0400

The plan calls for two expectations to be met as part of the transition.  Those expectations are the following:

   o  The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain.  It
      is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties
      acknowledge that fact as part of the transition.

   o  It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol
      parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent
      operator(s).  It is the preference of the IETF community that, as
      part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry
      out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the
      current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA
      [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent
      operator(s), should the need arise.  Furthermore, in the event of
      a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that
      ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to
      minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries
      or other resources currently located at iana.org.

The intent is to add language to the SLA to fulfill both of these expectations.

The IETF is ready to sign the updated SLA now, but we have been told that ICANN cannot do so until they get explicit permission as part of implementing the transition.  So, from our side, the answer to the question from the ICG leadership is "zero".

However, we also do not believe that we have accomplished a transition until that updated SLA is signed.  We have no way to know when ICANN will get the needed permission.  So, from that perspective, the answer to the question from the ICG leadership is "we do not know".

Russ

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 20:04:41 +0200

Russ,

I agree with all that you write, modulo one point:

On 5/27/15 7:33 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> The plan calls for two expectations to be met as part of the
> transition.  Those expectations are the following:
>
>       or other resources currently located at iana.org <http://iana.org>.
>
> The IETF is ready to sign the updated SLA now, but we have been told
> that ICANN cannot do so until they get explicit permission as part of
> implementing the transition.  So, from our side, the answer to the
> question from the ICG leadership is "zero".

We expect the CWG proposal to be updated.  I presume that the IAB and
perhaps this group may wish to comment on the revised proposal, and
specifically how the PTI relates to us, *if at all*.  If there is no
impact, then of course, there will be no additional time required.
>
> However, we also do not believe that we have accomplished a transition
> until that updated SLA is signed.  We have no way to know when ICANN
> will get the needed permission.  So, from that perspective, the answer
> to the question from the ICG leadership is "we do not know".
>
Eliot

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 14:29:04 -0400

Eliot:

> We expect the CWG proposal to be updated.  I presume that the IAB and perhaps this group may wish to comment on the revised proposal, and specifically how the PTI relates to us, if at all.  If there is no impact, then of course, there will be no additional time required.

Yes, but we can only answer in the context of our current proposal.  If we need to change our proposal in the future to align with the CWG proposal, then we can reassess the timeline.

Thanks,
  Russ

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 14:48:19 -0400

On May 27, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> ...
> However, we also do not believe that we have accomplished a transition until that updated SLA is signed.  We have no way to know when ICANN will get the needed permission.  So, from that perspective, the answer to the question from the ICG leadership is "we do not know”.

It would probably be best to provide an answer with sufficient context to allow NTIA 
(as the eventual receipt of the information) with the ability to interpolate based on its
own knowledge.   For example -

 “In order to be ready for the stewardship transition, the IETF requires an updated SLA
 with ICANN which addresses these two issues.  An updated SLA has been drafted and
 the protocol parameter community can be ready for stewardship transition immediately
 after its has been executed with ICANN.   At this time, we do not have any information
 regarding when ICANN will be able to enter into the updated SLA.”

/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 14:59:05 -0400

> regarding when ICANN will be able to enter into the updated SLA.”

I was trying to start the conversation on this list ...

I agree with your proposed formulation.  

Russ

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 08:37:45 +1200

> I agree with your proposed formulation.  

Yes, I think that is succinct and to the point. It's ironic that we're being
asked this question when our basic position is that we're happy with
the existing service, but there we go.

    Brian

---

From: Tobias Gondrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 23:42:49 +0200

> I agree with your proposed formulation.

I agree with Russ.
Best regards, Tobias

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

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 18:07:34 -0400

On May 27, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> ...   For example -
> I was trying to start the conversation on this list …

Indeed - excellent idea.

> I agree with your proposed formulation.  

I am 100% certain that other folks (e.g. Eliot) can do a better job
with this - my text was just to be an _example_ (to support the idea
that we need to supply enough context in the response) rather than
any form of thoughtful work product…

:-)
/John

Disclaimer: my views alone

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 02:00:11 +0300

I think we are going about this from a slightly wrong direction.
I think there’s some desire on ICANN side to transition in an
atomic fashion. Right or wrong...

But I think the answer from our side is essentially: we are
ready to proceed with the (final) steps of the transition today,
if NTIA, ICANN, etc. are. And these steps are “final” because
much of the necessary structure in our case has been built
in earlier years. And at least from my perspective those
steps could also be seen as our normal course of yearly
business improvement, rather than some grandiose
moment that various people need to get very excited
about :-)

Anyway, also, as discussed in the last days, different directions
in the details for the CWG process might have effects that we have
to consider.

And of course, if at any point in time someone wants us to
do something different or more, that would have an effect.

But I think my answer today would be as follows. Basing it
on John’s excellent text:

“The IETF is ready today to take the next steps in the
implementation of the transition of the stewardship.
In our case, most of the necessary framework is already
in place and implemented in preceding years.

From our perspective the remaining step is an updated
SLA with ICANN which addresses two issues. The update
has been drafted and from our perspective could be
immediately executed. When executed — and with
the NTIA contract with ICANN is voided -- from our
perspective the protocol parameter community
has completed the stewardship transition.

Of course, we are not alone in this process. Interactions
with other parts of the process may bring additional
tasks that need to be executed either before or
after the transition. First, the ICG, the RIRs,
and IETF have discussed the possibility of aligning
the treatment of IANA trademarks. The IETF Trust
has signalled that it would be willing to do this, if
asked. We are awaiting to coordination on this
to complete, but see no problem in speedy
execution once the decision is made. From our
perspective this is not a prerequisite for the transition,
however.

Second, the names community has developed a
“Post Transition IANA” (PTI) structure in their
proposal. Not all details of that are clear at this
point in time. Depending on the final setting of
those details, this may require no further action
from the IETF, if we can keep our existing contracts
in place. That is our preference. However, if the names
community decides on a structure that requires changes
to our contracts or further participation in the internal
structure governing the PTI, this will require further
work and community agreement.”

Jari

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 16:30:57 -0700

Hi Jari,

Some thoughts on specific language below.

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:

> SLA with ICANN which addresses two issues.

​Should we not summarize these issues here?​

> The update
> ​

Would this also work: "
Once these SLAs are in place, the transition would be substantially
complete, with only the NTIA contract lapse or termination as a final step.
" ?

> work and community agreement.”
​I think we may want to highlight this slightly differently.

"In addition, the names community has proposed the creation of a 'Post
Transition IANA' (PTI).  If the existing agreements between the IETF and
ICANN remain in place and the SLAs discussed above are not affected, the
IETF​ transition would take place as described above.  That is our
preference.  If the final details of the PTI plan require further action
from the IETF, more work and community agreement would be required.  The
timeline for that work cannot be set until the scope is known."

regards,

Ted

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 02:41:25 +0300

> ​Should we not summarize these issues here?​

Sure. I was lazy to add the text…

> has completed the stewardship transition.​
> 
> Would this also work: "Once these SLAs are in place, the transition would be substantially complete, with only the NTIA contract lapse or termination as a final step. “ ?

Yes - that would be better. Thanks.

> "In addition, the names community has proposed the creation of a 'Post Transition IANA' (PTI).  If the existing agreements between the IETF and ICANN remain in place and the SLAs discussed above are not affected, the IETF​ transition would take place as described above.  That is our preference.  If the final details of the PTI plan require further action from the IETF, more work and community agreement would be required.  The timeline for that work cannot be set until the scope is known.”

This is better too.

Jari

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 06:32:56 +0200

Jari, Ted,

I like the text below modulo one issue: the IANAPLAN proposal did not
specify how the IAOC would implement the requested changes (whether
through the SLA or another side agreement).  I would prefer that we
stuck to that approach and not name which agreement the changes go into
(SLA or a one-time supplemental agreement).

Eliot

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 08:15:55 +0300

Eliot:

> I like the text below modulo one issue: the IANAPLAN proposal did not specify how the IAOC would implement the requested changes (whether through the SLA or another side agreement).  I would prefer that we stuck to that approach and not name which agreement the changes go into (SLA or a one-time supplemental agreement).

Ok.

Trying to take this and Ted’s comments into account:

The remaining step is an updated agreement with
ICANN which addresses two issues. These issues are
outlined in Section 2.III in the Internet Draft
draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09.txt:

The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has
decided to use an update of our yearly IETF-ICANN Service Level
Agreement (SLA) as the mechanism for this updated
agreement. They have drafted the update and from our
perspective it could be immediately executed. Once the updated
agreement is in place, the transition would be substantially
complete, with only the NTIA contract lapse or termination
as a final step. 

In addition, the names community has proposed the
creation of a 'Post Transition IANA' (PTI).  If the existing
agreements between the IETF and ICANN remain in place
and the SLAs discussed above are not affected, the IETF​ 
ransition would take place as described above.  That is
our preference.  If the final details of the PTI plan require
further action from the IETF, more work and community
agreement would be required.  The timeline for that work
cannot be set until the scope is known.”

Jari

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 09:17:18 -0700

I think the formulation below is fine; it's a little long, but that's
likely okay here.

Ted

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:

> specify how the IAOC would implement the requested changes (whether through
> the SLA or another side agreement).  I would prefer that we stuck to that
> approach and not name which agreement the changes go into (SLA or a
> one-time supplemental agreement).
>
> Ok.
>

---

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 12:27:07 -0400

> I think the formulation below is fine; it's a little long, but that's

- actually, pretty short in ICANN world… ;-)
- fine by me too.

Marc, as individual

>> through

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 19:29:05 +0300

Thanks Marc & Ted.

(It is definitely longer than “we are ready now” :-) but I think
there is value in putting some context into the response.
It may be read by people who are not fully aware of
the IANAPLAN proposal etc.)

Jari

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:04:36 -0400

I like this text.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 10:11:03 -0700

> On May 28, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I like this text.

As do I.  Ship it!

Bob

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 17:34:34 +0200

>> On May 28, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:

Good enough.

Eliot

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 11:49:11 -0400

Thanks for pulling all of the pieces together.  I t looks good to me.

I think it should be signed by the IANAPLAN WG Chairs.  They were the ones that received the letter.

Russ

P.S.  Should we put the letter and the response in the liaison system to make them easy to find?

Ok.

Jari

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 17:54:02 +0200

> to make them easy to find?

That's an excellent idea.

Eliot

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 12:06:04 -0400

Jari,

minor edits

> On May 28, 2015, at 1:15 AM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Eliot:
> 
> asked. We are awaiting to coordination

s/to coordination/to coordinate

> on this
> ransition

s/ IETF ransition/IETF transition

Ray

> would take place as described above.  That is

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:13:55 +0200

>system to make them easy to find?

Dear Russ,

If you do that you reopen the WG,
Then I will appeal this decision I strictly oppose for reasons I plan 
to clarify hopefully today (I was on my first vacations for 15 years last week)
I certainly agree at least with John Klensin: at this stage we do not 
know what will happen after we do not know what is proposed to the IETF.
But I have more reasons. One being called an "ICANN customer" by 
Lawry what at least calls for clarifications.

jfc

---

From: Milton L Mueller <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 19:16:39 +0000

Just some nits

minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters

MM: should be “in the use of”…”

MM: trademarks and domains?

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:58:32 -0400

Jefsey:

> Then I will appeal this decision I strictly oppose for reasons I plan to clarify hopefully today (I was on my first vacations for 15 years last week)
> I certainly agree at least with John Klensin: at this stage we do not know what will happen after we do not know what is proposed to the IETF.
> But I have more reasons. One being called an "ICANN customer" by Lawry what at least calls for clarifications.
> 
> jfc

Please see http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ianaplan/charter/

	State:  Active

Russ

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 08:34:25 +0200

Hi,

>             MM: trademarks and domains? 

That sounds right to me.

Eliot

---

From: Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 13:05:16 -0400

Hi, Jari.

Jari Arkko wrote:
> If the existing agreements between the IETF
> and ICANN remain in place and the SLAs discussed above are not
> affected, the IETF​ ransition would take place as described above.
> That is our preference.

My instinct is that saying "that is our preference" is too strong. The 
approach that we've undertaken (updating the MOU with ICANN) is probably 
the most simple, and perhaps therefore has the lowest risk of disrupting 
the IETF's use of IANA protocol parameters registry. We should just say 
that.

I fear that the proposed text could be interpreted more broadly than we 
intend. For instance I don't think we wish to imply anything about a 
preference for the future structure of ICANN, PTI, accountability and 
stewardship, etc, which are being discussed by other stakeholder groups.

This is just my personal opinion.

-Benson

---

From: Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 13:05:22 -0400

> ones that received the letter.

+1

> P.S.  Should we put the letter and the response in the liaison system to

Yes, please.

-Benson

---

From: Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 19:47:43 -0400

Just to clarify one point, in response to an off-list conversation:

On Saturday, May 30, 2015, Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
> The approach that we've undertaken (updating the MOU with ICANN) is
> probably the most simple,

To be clear, I'm referring to our update of the SLA with ICANN. I was being
lazy in referring to that as "updating the MOU". Sorry if that was
confusing in any way.

-Benson

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 17:15:57 -0700

Benson,

I think the current text is fine and accurately describes our position.  If there are questions, we can answer them.

As I said before, ship it!

Bob

> On May 30, 2015, at 10:05 AM, Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Jari.
> 
> Jari Arkko wrote:
> My instinct is that saying "that is our preference" is too strong. The approach that we've undertaken (updating the MOU with ICANN) is probably the most simple, and perhaps therefore has the lowest risk of disrupting the IETF's use of IANA protocol parameters registry. We should just say that.
> 
> I fear that the proposed text could be interpreted more broadly than we intend. For instance I don't think we wish to imply anything about a preference for the future structure of ICANN, PTI, accountability and stewardship, etc, which are being discussed by other stakeholder groups.
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 00:42:47 +0300

>> MM: trademarks and domains? 

Me too. Thank you Milton.

Jari

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:51:06 +0200

Dear Folks,

We are supposed to represent the IETF/IANA (Informed) Users 
community. The IETF IPRs, the lack of attention that we received and 
the hacking of our site has not led us to develop as an IETF body, 
while some have initiated the IUWG lists. I think, however, that it 
is time for us to try to help the IETF and ourselves in the current 
circumstances of the IANA transition process, and to counter the new 
evolution of Paul Twomey's "IANA war".

1. A six-body complication

We are confronted with six stakeholders (IETF, RIR, ICANN, IANA, PTI, 
NTIA) that only seem to share in common their disdain for our user 
community (which pays for them all!). There are two possible POVs:

1.1. Political point of view

Clausewitz teaches that one always must consider the worst that can 
result from a given situation. The worst seems simple enough to describe:
- a transfer of the 5,000 billion internet worth (through TMs - the 
RFC 6852 "huge bounty") from NTIA/WIPO oversight, to ICANN, under 
FCC/Congress legal control
- and extend it to everything digital (i.e. capitalizing on the 
internet to oversee the whole multitechnology development, i.e. the 
1985 delayed IEN 48 initial project).

The mechanism is simple. The IANA is the unique authoritative 
repository. It will be operated by the DNSSEC operator, PTI Inc., 
incorporated in the US as a 100% ICANN affiliate replacement for 
Verisign, that should statisfy our new internet masters : ICA 
(http://www.internetcommerce.org/). This "simplification" could even 
permit ICANN to transfer to Geneva, as the WIPO, ITU, etc. while 
everything "commercially real" would stay under US jurisdiction.

Even with the WEF support and commercially led multistakeholderism, 
this depends on the lasting multilateral credibility of the US State 
"IN" (ICANN/NTIA) CLASS "unique authoritative root" fairy tale that 
China politely/politically has respected externally for years. But 
for how long now? We know this implies a risk and a cost the common 
users cannot accept. This is the reason why we sponsor the "FL" 
(Free/Libre) CLASS experimentation project [within the limits of the 
ICANN ICP/3 constraints in order to avoid any confusion] and MYCANN 
Plugs-in - moreover after 
<http://malware.dontneedcoffee.com/2015/05/an-exploit-kit-dedicated-to-csrf.html>http://malware.dontneedcoffee.com/2015/05/an-exploit-kit-dedicated-to-csrf.html.

1.2. normative point of view

The WG/IANAPLAN has permitted to experiment the lack of documentation 
that I opposed in RFC 6852 (the NTIA transition process follows +/- 
the OpenStand multistakeholderism):
-  nothing on how to address a situation where another community 
architectonically (i.e. more fundamentally than at its own 
architectural level) disagree with another community.
-  nothing on how a new "global community" can emerge and be acknowledged.

In this case:
- I fully understand and accept that this WG Draft and debate 
represents the rough IETF consensus
- however, as an informed user community member, I oppose this Draft 
because it is uncompleted.

My 
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/morfin-2015-03-11.pdf>http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/morfin-2015-03-11.pdf 
appeal and their response shows that the IESG refuses to consider the 
pending issues. However, some of these issues are already emerging. I 
will, therefore, wait until the mid-June limit to appeal the IAB in 
order to see how they are adapting to the reality evolution.

What seems obvious is that the IETF is downgraded from the 
"iana.arpa" referent having a right of life and death on ICANN (MOU) 
to one of the technical SDOs being using the ICANN coordinated names 
and addresses. Protocols pass but names and addresses remain; they 
survive technologies. The NTIA transition is the beginning of the 
post-TCP/IP era.

Lawrence Strickling words this clearly when he speaks of "ICANN's 
three customers". I certainly understand how names and numbers can 
foot an ICANN's IANA bill. How will the IETF cope if RFCs and 
parameters stay in the public domain: Russ Housley seems to be out of 
context...

2. We need an RFC 6852 solution

A structural solution is to be found. It is necessarily part of the 
NTIA transition. Otherwise, we users (informed users, end users, 
corporate users, governments, providers, cities, etc.) will look 
for/build it outside of this process. We need to help the NTIA 
clearly understand it: we are neither in a master/slave nor in a 
client/server situation. We are in a Masters and Masters relationship.

I certainly accept that the complication of the NTIA legacy is not 
easy to revamp into a seamless neutral intergovernance of the world 
digital ecosystem, Europe and BRICS can accept in the middle range.

This is why I propose that we proceed:
- (1) step by step.
- (2) from an informed user (IUser) point of view.
- (3) along a simple criteria that supersedes - on the middle/long 
global range - every political local arrangement/revolution: the 
"bubb" criteria: Biggest User Bang for a Buck.

2.1. Basic note

Please note that I do not oppose any local/political arrangement; I 
just want to check that each of them:

- consistently sustains the general use stream (and will, therefore, 
stay around being probably more and more reinforced)
- and not oppose or attempt to deflect it (because it would erode, 
degrade, and ultimately be replaced).

I do not oppose the idea that something might be replaced or 
improved, but I do not know how it will be replaced: I cannot support 
something that I don't know. This is also a French constitutional 
precautionary duty for the French citizens among us.

Is this sterilizing?

On the contrary. This is because we are in a particular case where:

- our charter pleads for a status quo (what I think leads to 
technical jeopardy)
- our AD, also the IETF Chair, explains to us that "we are trying to 
bring about a significant transition in the internet ...at the IETF 
we are lucky to be on the easier side, but we also want the best for 
the whole Internet". If I read this as usual, i.e. the "internet" as 
a technology and the "Internet" as the "I*Core" deployed network 
system, I am in total agreement.

We are truly establishing:

- new ***initial conditions*** for the internet
- in a new context for the Internet.

What is particular about the initial conditions is that you cannot 
change them afterward, only patch them.

This is why I am attentive to the latent embarrassments/extensions of 
the propositions that we may discuss. To clearly identify them, I 
will call them "bubbles": Biggest User Bang for a Buck Latent 
Embarrassment Suspicions or Extension Solutions.

2.2. The bubble list

To be pragmatic:

2.2.1. I suggest that we collect, extend, and maintain a bubbles 
list. With only a description of the issue.

2.2.2. so, anyone or global community can use the list and 
documentation to explore and document a decision tree 
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_tree>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_tree) 
from the first buck invested/spent by a user to the latest possible 
returned bang.

2.2.3. this will, therefore, result into a clear method enabling the 
ability to clearly support/follow/document each choice that users are 
to make depending on their project and the technologies they may use.

2.2.4. In order to support the corresponding effort for consistent 
multiple decision tree multi-consensuses, I suggest a common study 
for a "<http://netbubbles.net/>netbubbles.net" tool.

3. The seventh stakeholder

The advantage I am looking for here is to transform,
- what may look like a "users ectoplasm" to the honnest members of 
the names, numbers, and protocols communities
- into a seventh stakeholder that they can clearly identify as a 
"usedocs" community - documenting how to consistently deal with the 
digital ecosystem and multitechnology intricacy. The "usedocs.net" 
site could then be created. It could feed the IANA with its own use 
oriented references, becoming a fourth ICANN "customer" ?

I understand that at least several decision line families may quickly 
emerge with options such as: ICANN, MULTICANN, multistakeholderist, 
omnistakeholderist, self-restricted RFC use, permissionless 
innovation, LIBRE Relationware, Open Source, proprietary solutions, 
etc. without even considering national/continental enhanced 
cooperation projects. Having them clearly documented will probably 
help many in better understanding the pros and cons of the various 
solutions that they are considering, thereby driving sustainable innovation.
Sustainable innovation in turn contributes to the achivement of an 
"Inclusive, People Centered, Development Oriented and Knowledgeable 
Information Society for All" (Tunis Declaration).

jfc