Subject: Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-04.txt

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:04:35 +0100

At 15:32 23/11/2014, John Curran wrote:
>On Nov 23, 2014, at 4:40 AM, Richard Hill <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for this. It does reflect the discussions on the list up to 22
> > November.  But, on that date, John Curran made a proposal which received
> > some support, and, at least so far, no opposition.  Unless I am mistaken,
> > the proposal is to replace, in Section III, the following text: ...
>
><chuckle>
>
>Actually, I suggested that the WG might want to consider such text,
>'if the community felt that "legally binding agreement" was important'

<chuckle>

One step forward, two steps back.

I would not like to be an IAOC negotiator having that kind of public backing!

I emphasized already that only a three cross agreement ICANN, IETF, 
and RIRs coordinated tree (with collaterals' commitments) could web 
the accountability framework that is necessary for non-secure 
internet stability.

At this stage, it is far too early to know if such a contractual 
tensegrity can be imagined for the confidentiality oriented and 
security included stack internet that the IAB wants us to design and operate.

Since this WG has decided not to consider the reality of its external 
world, the only remaining alternative to an NTIA oversight 
continuation (probably on a decreasing part of the internet - cf. 
Chinese DNS) would remain (up to the IETF Last-Call, the IESG, IAB 
and ISOC to eventually decide):

- either an ITU-I technical/operational governance initiative that 
could meet a temporary approval of the USG, OECD, Brazil, WEF, ISOC, 
Russia, China, and SCO

- or(/and progressively) an innovative use (IUse) oriented move by a 
Libre, Industry, and Govs enhanced coalition based upon the RFC 6852 
principles. As it was actually settled at the WSIS in Tunis, if you 
carefully read the documents, confirmed in Sao Paulo, continued in 
Geneva by the WEF, by Obama before flying to Beijing and by everyone there.

It is now the time to discuss the post-wg/ianaplan issues.

Richard, I fail to see why you want the IETF to remain a key 
contributor. RFC 6852 has documented that it was only a 
non-directly-innovative part of the protocol community (innovation is 
from economic competition between global-community-markets). The IETF 
role is to formalize this innovation. This formalization's 
consecration was the publication of its parameters in the IANA (cf. 
UNICODE and their fight to introduce their own langtags). IETF could 
have retained control: based upon their own experience of their own 
working ways that they have decided in which they should not retain 
that responsibility - only to be in capacity to assist in case of 
conflict. Several made sure that this is really what they want - so 
we are sure that they will not change their mind after we have 
patched a fail-safe plan for ourselves.

Now, what remains for the IAB to decide is if they will retain an 
accountability coordination role. They have already partly abdicated 
it with RFC 6852 in not documenting themselves as an ultimate unique 
referent in case of appeal. This has allowed ICANN (IoT, Rosettanet, 
etc.) to develop its own ambitions/responses, what leaves its own 
accountability in limbo.

Actually, we are in 1977 again, but at a higher stratum (not from PTT 
monopolies to Datacoms competition) but rather from Datacoms 
complications to Metacoms complexity. This is an interesting time.

jfc