Subject: [iucg] Follow-up on RFC 6852 appeal and on Google Incidents

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 03:11:48 +0200

NB. I only use the iab@iab list in order to not get filtered because 
of the use of too many addresses.

----

Dear Chairs,

I am waiting for Bob Hinden's indications concerning the process of 
the ISOC third phase of my RFC 6852 appeal.

I am  asked to add a new concern exemplified by the recent 
unexplained Google difficulties (short interruption of service, no 
explanation available for the requests of captcha to users [access 
providers and end users alike]). Due to the size of the Google 
system, this is also of a general architectural and possibly 
architectonical concern along RFC 3439 and a part of the dialogue 
Russ encouraged me to maintain about the next steps with OpenStand.

One of the points of this concern of mine (cf. appeals and previous 
mail) is how OpenStand will ensure an "adequate and sufficient 
protection of the rights of all parties in a fair and open end to end 
Internet Standards Process". I might illustrate this through the 
market oriented need of a quality of use information protocol in case 
of network neutrality violation (end to end) or service provider 
(end) instability.

The internet is not free. End-users pay:

- with their money, the use of the common network resources assumed 
by the various operators
- and with their "microtimes" spent for making the service providers' 
advertising available to them. When access is interrupted or when a 
disproportionate overpayment is claimed (time and effort wasted to 
enter a captcha or waste of time due to the interruption of a 
legitimate automated interrogation process), they should be 
compensated at least with an explanation and a microtime credit (no 
advertising for an equivalent microtime amount).

Until RFC 6852, along with RFC 3935, the technology documentation was 
on a best effort basis for it to work better for all  so an internet 
"disaster" could be considered as an "act of God". Now, the 
technology is to be documented in the best interest of markets and 
global communities and, therefore, disasters will be claimed to 
possibly result from human architectural choices, i.e. "OpenStand 
acts", grounded on no architectonical certitude or 
legally/internationally approved consensus.

My point is to initiate a debate toward such a consensus in order to 
be precautionarily formalized. The appeal is, therefore, to call the 
attention:

- of OpenStand on the necessity of a debate that would protect its 
members and every good faith technologist, and ethitechnically 
influence the pursuit of an information society common cultural esthetic;

of the other regalian domain's, civil society's, private sector's, 
and international organization's stakeholders on an apparent 
opposition of OpenStand to such a debate. To show this opposition, I 
have two public speaking yes/no tests:

   -- a clearly documented appeal procedure matching the 
precautionary rights and duties (which are constitutional in France) 
 that so far the IESG and IAB responses did not consider.
   -- a real time network non-neutrality/instability incident 
reporting protocol, permitting every concerned use/user to trigger 
security and economic adequate responses. Nobody denied the need yet, 
but where should it be discussed and agreed upon, except in an 
enhanced cooperation structure like the IGF, the IETF and IAB do not attend.

I am certainly interested in any possible comment on these matters 
which illustrate the question posed by the lack of IDNA2008 and now 
RFC 6852 disclaimer: what is today the consensual ultimate referent 
in terms of internet technology, Datacommunications architecture and 
Digital architectonics?

Should we revert to ITU, ISO, JTC1, UN?

jfc