Subject: [iucg] RFC 6852 considered appeal

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 05:20:14 +0100

As I announced it on Aungust 28th, I consider appealing RFC 6852 (the 
market oriented ISOConsortium rather than the better Internet 
oriented IETF). For calendar reasons I would have to foreward it this week.

The reason why is that I gave the IAB, IETF and ISOC Chairs all the 
time before and after the WCIT to explain the Internet research, 
engineering and users communities their vision of the Internet 
technical evolution and to clarify their "OpenStand" strategy, in 
relation with our expectations for an "OpenUse" architectural effort 
(a better, neutral and secure use of the Internet).

What do they think better to foster with the other stakeholders 
(Govs, Civil Society and International Organizations): cooperation, 
coopetition, or competition?  Or do they think the Internet 
technological "statUS-quo" under the self-governance of the private 
sector is a more most advisable incremental development path? In such 
a case we would be better to keep and protect it:  organizing its 
"adminance" (technical governance) together, within their market 
monopoly framework, as we did for ICANN.

I will come back on this in the coming days, but I would already like 
to know if some have new positions to suggest. I plan to look 
carefully at the positions already expressed by Stephane Bortzmeyer, 
Michael Gurstein, Daniel Kalchev, Avri Doria, Lee McKnight, Suresh 
Ramasubramanian, Kerry Brown, Norbert Bollow, Dominique Lacroix, 
McTim, Adam Peake, Louis Pouzin, Carlos Alfonzo, Ian Peter, Nick 
Ashton-Hart, Alejandro Pisanty, and others on  ther lists.

I underline that it cannot be a direct debate on the very mission of 
the IETF and of the Civil Society technical involvement: it can only 
directly consider the respect of the RFC 2026 Internet standard 
process and RFC 4845 IAB publication process in publishing RFC 6852. 
Otherwise I would be dismissed. So, the point is to show that due to 
the very nature of the matter at hand they could/should have used 
other rules, and therefore that they had taken decisions.

I pland to object these decisions as inadequate in making everyone 
understand where they, IETF and we stand. And therefore to have a 
decision to publish a clarification on the way RFC 6852 does not 
conflict with :
- RFC 3869 (IAB Concerns and Recommendations regarding Internet 
Research and Evolution)
- and RFC 3935 (mission and core values of the ITEF). The appeal is 
in three rounds: one to the IETF, with escalation to the IAB and final to ISOC.

I have several times strategically appealed the IESG/IAB. The effort 
of this appeal would only be acceptable for me if it truely helps the 
community, clarifying how to develop and launching an OpenUse 
strategy by Civil Society and open to Govs and international 
organizations, with the cooperation of the engineering community and 
based upon a reliable and performing better internet, towards a 
people centered better use of the Internet.

Comments welcome.
jfc