Subject: [Ianaplan] Update and next steps for IANAPLAN WG

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:21:11 -0500

Following up the notice that Marc shared earlier:  not only has the ICG 
shared the combined plan with the ICANN board, today the ICANN board has 
voted in favour of accepting the unified IANA transition proposal, for 
which the IANAPLAN WG’s document captured the requirements of the IETF 
for the protocol parameter part of IANA.

As a next step, the transition proposal is being sent to NTIA as the 
community plan to move forward consistently with the requirements laid 
out by the NTIA at the beginning of this process.  It is now up to the 
NTIA process to review the proposal in the light of those requirements.

Implementation can’t actually complete until there is formal 
acceptance from the NTIA/USG, but it’s not too soon to plan.   The 
bodies responsible for management of the parts of the proposal are 
moving forward in discussions of how to implement the proposal.

For that reason, we are holding a slot for the IANAPLAN WG to meet in 
Buenos Aires, should there be specific material requiring community 
input in that timeframe.

We will be providing an agenda for the meeting as that becomes apparent, 
or otherwise canceling the session if there is no practical need for it.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 14:11:52 +0100

At 18:21 10/03/2016, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>which the IANAPLAN

Dear Chairs,

It is sad that the IAB and IETF consensus as well as the ICANN Board 
have all chosen to disrespect the spirit of the incomplete RFC 6852. 
I made sure through two appeals that the OpenStand lack of technical 
conflict resolution process among "global communities" was a 
deliberate and consensual IAB/IETF strategy. The ICANN BoD decision 
to support this strategy to its own benefit and to the (IETF 
accepted) NTIA advantage is, therefore, a clearly endorsed consensual 
technical and ethical breach of trust when referring to the IEN 48 
second objective.

This is now clearly confirmed by:

- Alissia Cooper: (ICG Chair) : "there will be a hearing about the 
IANA stewardship transition in the US House Energy and Commerce 
Committee 
<file:///C:\Users\MORFIN\AppData\Local\Temp\x-apple-data-detectors:\0>on 
Thursday, March 
17<<https://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings-and-votes/hearings/privatizing-internet-assigned-number-authority>https://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings-and-votes/hearings/privatizing-internet-assigned-number-authority>. 
I will be testifying as the ICG chair and will mention that I am 
serving on the ICG as an IETF appointee and that I am on the IESG. I 
am there to speak to the details of the transition proposal and 
provide some perspective from the [my note: IETF] technical community.

- Lawrence E. Strickling, "US Assistant Secretary for Communications 
and Information and NTIA": 
<https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/reviewing-iana-transition-proposal>https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/reviewing-iana-transition-proposal.

This is clear and utterly consistent with the NSA sponsored IP 
technology security freezing of 1986 after the RFC 923 misstep: the 
closing of my Tymnet Extended Services department, and the creation 
of the IETF for the US virtual glocal networking (VGN) protocol 
monopoly politically and commercially established over the peoples of 
the world network's global catenet.

The US ARPANET led to the US Internet, which in turn leads to the US 
multistakeholder model under NTIA's review along its criteria: US 
multistakeholder and neither multilateral nor omnistakeholder 
approach, dominant name system (I should have copyrighted DNs!), IANA 
market protection, and BUG (Be Unilaterally Global TCP) technology 
for all, with the help of "the other U.S. government agencies", under 
the guidance of "the U.S. Government Accountability Office" and the 
monitoring of the "U.S. Congress".

However, over the past 30 years, the IETF has not addressed security, 
people's languages, and the permissionless innovation issues in a 
convincing way not making the US digital leadership stumble in Dubai 
in front of the other National Security Agencies.

And now ?
It is time for the IEN 48 glocal definition and second objective.

In spite of the resulting networking architecture, relative 
regression, and "status quo" of the last three decades, software 
technologies and experience made tremendous progress and the balances 
between commercial, military, and civil R&D budgets and capacities 
have evolved. As a consequence, it is now probably possible:

* to technically bypass the tri-decennial impact of the internet 
conceptual freeze of the world's catenet;
* to pragmatically and progressively free it from its US 
military-industrial Unix super-user culture
* and to adequately review its US establishment take-over of the 
global digital intrastructure and governance to everyone's (including 
the US) best interest.

It may take time, lead to new strategic alliances, have to sustain 
new user behaviors, and result in a totally new, robust, and 
diversified architectonic landscape and human environment. Such a 
change may be both delaying and also an exciting simplification 
challenge (RFC 3439). I enjoy the prospect as my basic principle, 
which I derive from Leibnitz and Chaitin, states "the simpler the 
premises, the richer the emergence".

This is what, with friends, we are going to discuss, develop, 
reenter, test, and hopefully deploy in the coming years; outside of 
the I-CANN/AB/ETF conglomerate, and hopefully coherently extended to 
the whole information, communication, and intellition spectrum. I 
cannot commit on behalf of my colleagues or those who will join us, 
but I hope we can continue working and make friendly ties with it 
all, as per RFC 6852 (we [as "XLIBRE"] will probably extend toward a 
better multi/omni-stakeholderist concerting).

I apologize for having, over the years, harassed the IETF at large in 
order to somewhat keep it on my tracks. I particularly thank Vint and 
John for the work on IDNs. RFC 5895 is what conceptually (will) 
permit(s) the 1978 catenet, the 1983 internet, and the coming cobotic 
"intersems", as I tend to call their architectural class, to 
interoperate by subsidiarity.

 From today, I understand the IETF is the technical support of the 
Internet AmerICANN National Agency (IANA) for the GAFAM/USCC global 
community, a key participant in the international packet switch 
system (IPSS) in which we made it welcome in 1984.

If you still have a negotiation capacity with ICANN or the NTIA, I 
suggest IAB to take over the CLASS "IN" ".iana" registry. This might 
help users, someday, understand the way the internet protocol set of 
the catenet is documented and supported.

Best
jfc