Subject: [iucg] The same problem once more

From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:37:24 +0100

Dear IESG Members,

We known very well that the WG/IDNABIS Chair would try to insert one 
"MUST" or two, between the IETF/LC appoving a no "MUST" (hence 
technically flexible) document set and the IESG. This is what is 
currently attempted.

Now, we have progressed a lot since the first BCP47 days. Our duty 
and our ability is to understand why he wants so much to do it, what 
are his architectural grounds (we feel they are rooted in a 
centralized evaluation of the influence the Internet would need from 
his point of viw, but we may be wrong), and what the IESG will think 
and decide about it.

This is not an easy task for you. But it is a fundamental point that 
must eventually be clarified. So I we are not anymore obliged to 
progressively and painstakingly force the clarification.

The true issue in front of the IESG at this occasion is again the following:

"who should hold the IETF leadership (cf. RFC 3935 describes the 
leadership and its role):
- (a) those who consider what is better for the machines
- (b) those who consider what is better for the people
- (c) those who try to uncover the best for both or,
- (c) those who consider what is better for their own agenda."

This is not a trivial matter and the more we are to go multicultural 
the more it becomes the top issue. It MUST now be treated and it MUST 
be now answered with the greatest care. We will certainly appeal if 
this was not the case. Not because I would love it. Nor by habit. But 
because we all/the world need a formal and documented position that 
is clearly missing in RFC 3935. And we need that position because it 
is an important part of the IETF architecture and strategic credibility.

RFC 3935 states that the IETF must influence those who design, use, 
and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work 
better. However, it does not state as to what is better for who or 
what 'better' actually means. We MUST know that answer. There is no 
contention here. This is an architectural imperative. For example, we 
cannot talk of network neutrality if we do not state a response to 
that question beforehand.

This also is true for ISOC and ICANN. Therefore, we might have to 
escalate an appeal to the ISOC if we do not receive a clear answer 
from them ('we' being the Internet community). Life is necessarily 
made of decisions that some people will view as a bias.

The Internet has a linguistic bias (ASCII English, RFC 3935: "The 
IETF uses the English language  for its work is because of its 
utility for working in a global  context"). We know that and the work 
we carried those two last years must help addressing it.

We know the IETF has a cultural bias (RFC 3935: The Internet isn't 
value-neutral, and neither is the IETF.  We want  the Internet to be 
useful for communities that share our commitment  to openness and 
fairness. ...  These concepts have little to do with the  technology 
that's possible, and much to do with the technology that  we choose 
to create)." We need to know if the IETF wants to impose its views to 
the world by the mean of its not value-neutral technology.

We also  must know what its priority bias is.

- we known that the Chair favors the "a" group. James Seng has been 
very clear about it and he confirmed.
- politically most of people and business users claim they belong 
to  "b" group. We have people like Patrick Yeu in France reminding us 
all day long.
- we are an increasing number who feel (especially due to the Fast 
Track and IDNgTLDs disloyalty) that ICANN is under "d" influcene. 
This is something we cannot accept as stable until it is further clarified.
- but if we want to serve people with something that works, then "c" 
is necessarily to arbitrate.

This is the current "after the limit" debate that occured at the 
WG/IDNABIS. Its review by the IESG (and IAB, and ISOC and GAC if we 
have to appeal and then to escalate a first appeall) is very 
important and MUST be very seriously considered. On pure technical 
feasibility grounds (we do not want another IPv6 or DNSSEC saga). 
Because we keep in mind that imposing cultural changes on technical 
grounds is an architectural layer violation that will certainly not 
work on the long term.

In addition, a new fractal element just technically came in with 
Andrew Sullivan. I wrote a Draft on IDNA as a smooth Transition 
paradigm for the IETF and another one on IETF precautionary duty. 
During what I call the WYRIWIG (what you register is what you get) 
debate, Andrew Sullivan has introduced the concept of a transition 
within this transition. Still more recently, Shawn Steele  introduced 
the idea of a transition _within_ an IETF consensus as acceptable, 
depending on the outcome of further debates and who is considered as 
a "valid" participant or as "noise".

This possibility of "iterative reversion of selective consensus" is 
rather new at the IETF and might conflict or even oppose with the 
rough consensus fundamentals (a consensus is no more something of 
which the AD can build archives).  Transitioning is a rather 
difficult processus we consider for years at the global internet 
level and scale. It may also be very important to consider it at the 
"initial conditions" scale of the system of a WG. This is a general 
dynamization of the Internet culture. It is interesting and exciting. 
But this definitly is no part of the WG/IDNABIS Charter.

It is too bad that we have wasted so much time. All of the WG work 
could have been wrapped-up in just three months as documented in the 
Charter. Most of the time we used could have been spent on (in the 
very pertinent to the matter case of internationalization) the two 
fundamental questions that we now have to see addressed by the WG/INDABIS.

In the new Internet context (greatest change in 40 years, says ICANN, 
which may blurr the intuitive references).
- who is the IETF working for? What does "better" mean for the Internet?
- what about a transition as a part of the Internet architecture and 
the IETF process?

We all must listen, ask, and require clarifications in order to be 
sure that we all understand each other on all of these points. This 
can require a lot of time if the points are disregarded. We cannot 
afford this. If this was the case this would have to be ported again 
(there is unfortunately no other way to timely obtain answers on such 
matters) by three appeals plus a call to the GAC and an open 
community debate. Alternatively, it can be very quick, if we all 
agree (WG, IESG, IAB, ICANN, IDNgTLD, Internet Users, ISOC, GAC).

The document that Vint has promised will provide a first key indication.

jefsey morfin