Subject: [iucg] A Libre IUser community Draft

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 16:19:22 +0100

In order to permit a normal work of this WG that has committed to 
consider proposals from other communities, and due to the I_D 
sumission cut-off period, we have formally created a small Libre IUWG 
at http://iuwg.net and published the draft we had prepared as a 
contribution of an RFC 6852 global community/NTIA stakeholder. This 
unexpected WG will formalize in the coming days.

No to slow down the compromise process we have only updated a few 
words in our draft to address the issue in the perspective a separate 
WG shares with the IETF IRT our own names, numbers and parameters 
referent registries for our users.

You will find the draft at the 
http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.00.pdf

I understand that you will want to consider during the Nov 10 meeting 
if you amalgamate our positions within a WG/IANAPLAN revised draft or 
if we will have to advance our positions separately.

Best
jfc

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 20:06:47 +0100

At 19:02 05/11/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>I'm sorry, but for the purposes of stating what "the IETF wants", the
>IETF is not more than the consensus-calling process that we use for
>everything else.  There is exactly one way for the IETF to say what
>"it" wants, and that is to do a consensus call.

Dear Andrew,

I have no problem with you not understanding what your different
colleagues may say, and in expessing your our thinking as a reference
other may oppose, etc. This is a philosophical form of more emotive
debate (beliefs vs beliefs). I must confess I prefer a scientific form
of debate, where critics are meant to add to a common progress.
However, both approaches are blocked when the accepted consensus is
opposed like you do here.

I think it is worth to underline it when it clearly occurs such in
your position above, when compared with the RFC 3935 (IETF mission
statement) section 3 which is the base of most's reasoning in terms of
decision preparation by this WG

"3.  The Need for a Mission Statement

    The IETF has to make decisions.  And in some cases, people acting on
    behalf of the IETF have to make decisions without consulting the
    entire IETF first.

    There are many reasons for this, including the near-impossibility of
    getting an informed consensus opinion on a complex subject out of a
    community of several thousand people in a short time.

    Having a defined mission is one of the steps we can take in order to
    evaluate alternatives: Does this help or hinder the mission, or is it
    orthogonal to it? If there are limited resources, are there things
    that they could be invested in that help the mission better?

    (Another step is to choose leaders that we trust to exercise their
    good judgement and do the right thing.  But we're already trying to
    do that.)"

Which position should we accept as accept as a reference for this WG's work?
jfc

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 03:17:59 +0100

Dear Leslie,

why not to accept that at this stage no one can 
say what is the scope of the WG, what will happen 
at the end of the day, who should be a 
participant, what are understood or accepted by 
them ... because there is no consensus, too many "beliefs" rather than facts.

And if there was a consensus, it should be 
negociated. Then (next week) a probable counter 
proposition by Russia+China supported by BRICS. 
etc. makes us sure that the status-quo will have 
to be updated. How many Russian, Chinese citizens in this WG?

Why not just to consider our Charter and mission 
statement for what they say and not for what 
ICANN or anyone else may say. In any coming 
***unknown*** political, multilateral, 
multistakeholder, and middleware situation, the 
internet will still have to work and possibly to 
work better. That is the IETF job. We should only 
be interested by that, and incidently to make 
sure ISOC, ICANN, RIRs, ITU, IANA, IUsers, etc. 
etc. have obtained from us the technical capacity 
to help us and our users so they design, use and 
manage the Internet in order that it works better..

My Draft just says that, in the way the charter, 
the NTIA, ICANN say it (look at the text, the 
largest part comes from them). My helpers were 
worried by the cut-off issue. Actually it helps: 
our Draft is a non-IETF one, so it is not bound 
by BCP_78. Nor by any other consensus that our's. 
It is CC BY SA, and if you look at our young site 
we had to set-up to publish the Draft, we can 
start considering there, the real issues of the real world.

As IUsers, we are no lawyers, no politicians, no 
gurus, just Libre developpers and/or 
involved/independent Internet users. And we 
expect only one thing from the IETF: the 
technical capacity to continue to run the digital 
part of our business and life the way we are used 
and  want to do it. i.e. in not being racketed 
anymore by the "ICANN industry", not to be 
subject to an "US jurisdiction", not to be 
"protected by the NSA", not to be worried about 
the Chinese back-doors, not to be involved in the 
Russian strategy and hackers, not to be harassed 
by civil society activists, not to have to be 
concerned by Indian and Brazilian, and etc. and etc. new propositions.

Just to live in digital peace with an "IG proof" 
technology allowing us to be digitally autonomous !.

Either you tell the IETF to focus on that, or we 
will understand you want us to do it by our own. 
No worry, but don't tell us afterward you dont 
like it as you kept telling about NATs.

jfc

At 21:43 05/11/2014, Leslie Daigle (TCE) wrote:

>Miles,
>
>The IAOC needs to know what the IETF wants in 
>order to build the administrative structures to 
>provide it.  In other contexts, the IAOC has 
>been pretty tightly circumscribed to not "invent" things for the IETF.
>
>In that light, I believe the purpose of this 
>working group is to develop consensus around the 
>needs of the community to support the IETF's 
>work and protocols, going forward.     As a 
>developer (of standards, or software using 
>standards), or deployer of networks, or other 
>producer/consumer of technical protocol 
>parameters, what are the requirements of the system post-NTIA transition?
>
>That may not be protocol engineering, but it is 
>a fairly technical task.  It is not defining the 
>form of the final implementation to meet those 
>requirements (lawyering, contracting, etc).   As 
>a technical task, I believe it is possible for a 
>working group format to achieve the outcome.
>
>To your specific points:
> > a. this working group has to overtly address issues, and recruit
> > experience, that are not normally within IETF WG purview, or,
>
>Per the above, I don't believe that is 
>necessary.  Notably, in this group's charter:
>
>[From http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ianaplan/charter/ ]
>"Fully documenting the interaction between the IETF and the operator
>of IETF protocol parameters registries may require detailed terms of
>agreements or other details of procedures that are normally delegated
>to and handled by the IAB or IAOC."
>
> >
> > b. we need to have some OTHER, clearly defined, open, consensus process
> > for addressing this set of issues; that includes strong representation
> > from those with governance, regulatory, legal, and contractual matters
> > in the Internet context (starting with the IAB, IAOC, IETF trust, and ISOC)
>
>That question is outside the scope of this 
>WG.  If you feel it is necessary, I would 
>suggest that you could take it up (in person, or 
>remotely) at the Admin Plenary at IETF91, next week.
>
>Leslie.
>
>On 11/5/14 12:03 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>Suzanne,
>>
>>Thank you for the thoughtful comments, but.. I would take issue with you
>>on a couple of items - see below...
>>
>>Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>>>Colleagues,
>>>
>>>I want to thank Miles and Andrew for this exchange; it suggests a
>>>potentially useful insight on where we might be talking past each other.
>>>
>>>Much of this conversation, and a number of other apparent
>>>disagreements inside the WG, seem to me to come from a disconnect
>>>between a) people who have experience of the IETF and its structures
>>>because they do work in the environment the IETF creates and b) people
>>>who don't, whose knowledge of the processes and activities described
>>>in draft-ietf-ianaplan are less immediate.
>>
>>I don't believe this is an accurate representation of the situation.
>>
>>I think it's more that at least several of us are questioning how well
>>standard IETF structures and procedures apply to the task at hand -
>>i.e., crafting a consensus proposal that responds to the the ICG, and to
>>the NTIA - and doing so through an open, transparent, consensus process.
>>(As I believe NTIA and the ICG are asking for.)
>>
>>>
>>>To many IETF participants with experience in getting work done within
>>>the organizational structures we're talking about, there are some
>>>fairly clear assumptions that can easily be made about the role of the
>>>WG and of the IETF and related groups. One is that the WG's job, per
>>>the charter, is not to tell the IAB and the IAOC exactly what to say,
>>>to the ICG or ICANN or anyone else; it's to establish consensus on the
>>>desired outcomes and basic tradeoffs, so the consensus can be
>>>implemented by contracts, other means of establishing shared
>>>understanding such as liaisons and MoUs, business processes of the
>>>IANA, procedural documents that may be RFCs, etc. Another is that the
>>>IAB and the IAOC can reasonably be trusted to do this because it's
>>>what they're asked and chosen by the community to do, by a nomcom
>>>chosen from the community and under criteria the community has every
>>>opportunity to influence. It's also generally assumed-- because we've
>>>seen it over the years-- that the IAB and the IAOC have every
>>>reasonable help in doing their jobs from lawyers and other
>>>professionals. Some of the confidence is from feeling we know the
>>>people and the processes that gave them their current
>>>responsibilities; some is because there are appeal and recall
>>>processes also defined in case we got it really wrong.
>>
>>
>>It strikes me that, as others have also pointed out, that governance,
>>legalities, and contracts are NOT typically working group matters. Which
>>is a different matter entirely from whether they are central issues that
>>must be addressed in a response to the ICG.
>>
>>Rather, these matters are delegated to "organs" of the IETF that don't
>>seem to generally operate through the same consensus process as IETF's
>>primary standards making activities.
>>
>>Which leaves a very big gap between the task at hand, the issues to be
>>addressed, and a consensus process for arriving at a proposal to the
>>ICG, and follow-on discussions and negotiations on behalf of the IETF as
>>"our" proposal is merged with those of the other stakeholder communities.
>>
>>Leaving such matters to the IAB and IOAC, after the WG develops a draft,
>>does not seem an adequate approach, in that:
>>- as Richard points out - lawyers tend to do a better job with clear
>>direction (personally, I'd make the same observation about contracting
>>officers)
>>- GIGO: the working group is talking engineering, while this is
>>primarily a legal & contractual matter - a draft written by engineers is
>>not necessarily a good basis for a response that should (IMHO) be framed
>>in contractual language
>>- "trusting the IAB and the IOAC" is neither open, transparent, nor by
>>consensus (irregardless of whether we, in fact, trust them)
>>
>>
>>As I see it, either:
>>
>>a. this working group has to overtly address issues, and recruit
>>experience, that are not normally within IETF WG purview, or,
>>
>>b. we need to have some OTHER, clearly defined, open, consensus process
>>for addressing this set of issues; that includes strong representation
>>from those with governance, regulatory, legal, and contractual matters
>>in the Internet context (starting with the IAB, IAOC, IETF trust, and ISOC)
>>
>>
>>Otherwise, IMHO, IETF is not carrying the water in responding to the
>>RFP; and more substantively, risks undesirable outcomes in a post-NTIA
>>world.
>>
>>Respectfully,
>>
>>Miles Fidelman
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>And some of the confidence comes from understanding that a failure of
>>>this process, or the IETF/ICANN relationship, would be a massive,
>>>painful inconvenience, best avoided in any way reasonably possible--
>>>but not an existential threat to the ability of the IETF to do its work.
>>>
>>>It seems to me that many of the participants here (Andrew, Eliot,
>>>Leslie, Brian, etc.) have shared these underlying assumptions, so that
>>>even when they've disagreed on the specific outcomes we're looking
>>>for, they've agreed on the level of detail and the tradeoffs ("need to
>>>have" vs. "nice to have") that should be specified in this document
>>>and within this WG's charter.
>>>
>>>It also seems that other participants have wanted to have an entirely
>>>different conversation, on first principles such as the need for
>>>lawyers to negotiate contracts.
>>>
>>>On Nov 4, 2014, at 8:22 PM, Miles Fidelman <[email-masked]
>>><mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 04:51:12PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>When it comes to legal, contractual, and governance matters - the
>>>>>>IETF is
>>>>>>more than it's working groups, it includes the IAB, IESG, IAOC, etc
>>>>>>(as
>>>>>>components of the IETF); the ISOC (as "parent" or whatever of the
>>>>>>ISOC); and
>>>>>>arguably the "protocol parameters community" is more than just the
>>>>>>IETF.
>>>>>>These perspectives are reflected, at best, informally, in the
>>>>>>charter and
>>>>>>discussions of the WG.
>>>>>It seems to me that the IETF has managed to set up all those
>>>>>organizations except for ISOC.  So what about the IETF makes you think
>>>>>that it is incapable of drawing conclusions about organizations and
>>>>>institutional arrangements?
>>>>
>>>>I'm not.  I'm observing several things:
>>>>- the outside world (or the plain observer) does not see the
>>>>granularity - and things like "the IETF will ask the IAOC to conclude
>>>>supplemental agreement" are just incredibly murkey reading
>>>>- the WG charter has excluded a bunch of topics that one would expect
>>>>to see in a complete response to the ICG RFP - particularly legal and
>>>>contractual stuff
>>>>- the WG charter seems to focus on a subset of the issues requested
>>>>by the RFP
>>>>- other components of the IETF - like the IAOC, the IAB are not
>>>>really involved in the discussion (e.g., nobody seems to want to have
>>>>any lawyers involved in the discussion) - and I have yet to see any
>>>>discussion of how those components/perspectives are going to be
>>>>incorporated into the formal response to the ICG
>>>
>>>As above, and I think Andrew said but perhaps not quite explicitly
>>>enough: the IAB and the IAOC are trusted to get the implementation
>>>details covered in a reasonable, workable way because it's the job
>>>they were appointed to, after consideration of their qualifications
>>>for it; because of past experience, including some difficult moments
>>>in other relationships of the IETF with IANA and RFC Editor operators;
>>>and because the community can kick them out if we really don't like
>>>what they're doing.
>>>
>>>What's become clear in this exchange and others is that those
>>>assumptions are not making it into the document, and remain opaque for
>>>those not experienced with the processes and structures.
>>>
>>>For example, I'm not worried about whether the IAOC will consult real
>>>lawyers when it comes to drafting contract language, and no, it's not
>>>because I think real lawyers aren't needed. It's because I know they
>>>are, if the appropriate vehicles for doing what we want turn out to
>>>include contracts, and that the IAOC doesn't need you or me to tell
>>>them so, they need us to tell them what we want them to accomplish
>>>with the help of those lawyers.
>>>
>>>I think a lot of the experienced IETF participants here aren't worried
>>>about it either.
>>>
>>>But we need to be concerned that you are.
>>>
>>>>>I note that the IAB's opinion is explicitly called out in the existing
>>>>>draft; and speaking with my IAB hat on just for a moment, I can tell
>>>>>you that the IAB is in fact paying attention to this document and that
>>>>>it cannot be published with the claim that the IAB agrees with it
>>>>>unless the IAB does in fact agree.
>>>>>
>>>>>The IAOC, of course, is going to need to be able to implement such
>>>>>advice as the WG delivers.  So we can expect that the diligent members
>>>>>of the IAOC will also undertake relevant review.
>>>>
>>>>But where are the members of the community being engaged in that
>>>>discussion.  This all sounds more like "we'll wave our hands over
>>>>things and adjust/bless them." That's not an open process.
>>>
>>>This *is* "where….the members of the community [are] being engaged in
>>>that discussion." This seems to be preferable to having everyone on
>>>this mailing list in the room negotiating contract language, even
>>>assuming further contract language is needed beyond what we have
>>>today. Forgive me if that sounds flippant, but I think there's a
>>>serious underlying question there too: at what point do you think it's
>>>appropriate for the community to say "OK, guys, here's the outcomes we
>>>want, the basics of how to get there, and some tradeoffs we regard as
>>>important, now *you* go do *your* job of implementing it" to the
>>>people it's appointed?
>>>
>>>>>It strikes me that there seem to be some who would like to claim that
>>>>>more grown-up or professional or serious or what-have-you procedures
>>>>>-- basically, "more like I would prefer" -- are needed for this
>>>>>effort.  But the argument for that conclusion appears to be simply
>>>>>repetition of the claim.  One needs rather a better argument than
>>>>>abusive _ad hominem_ ("wishy washy" and so on) to be convincing.
>>>>
>>>>Well, how about the WG charter limiting the scope of discussions to a
>>>>subset of the ICG RFP?
>>>
>>>The one that assumes the IAOC and the IAB will do their jobs, and that
>>>we'll be able to tell if they're not?
>>>
>>>I'll agree that that could be better documented. The charter reads
>>>just fine to me, given the assumptions I'm comfortable making from
>>>experience, but that doesn't mean it's easily explained to others. I'm
>>>tentatively convinced that there should be more in the final
>>>deliverable from the IETF to the ICG on why the IETF consensus is
>>>suitable in scope and suitable as instructions to the IAOC (which is
>>>responsible for contractual relationships on behalf of the IETF,
>>>including the RFC Editor, the IANA, and the secretariat) and the IAB
>>>(which has overall responsibility for those functions on behalf of the
>>>IETF, and is expected to consult with the IETF on those
>>>responsibilities, as it has here).
>>>
>>>But I think it would be a failure in a number of ways for this WG to
>>>spend its time on "legal and contractual stuff," or for the IAOC and
>>>the IAB to be bound by the results if we did.
>>>
>>>
>>>best,
>>>Suzanne
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Ianaplan mailing list
>>>[email-masked]
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>
>
>--
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Leslie Daigle
>Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
>[email-masked]
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ianaplan mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 14:46:03 +0100

Dear Colleagues,

Since I have been unexpectedly led to create the 
<http://iuwg.net/>http://iuwg.net site, I intend to activate this 
unplanned WG for an Intelligent Internet Use and to utilize this 
Libre's Internet Use global community representation spark in order 
to competitively foster some technical governance innovations (as per 
RFC 6852).

As such, my priority does change:

- from expecting the IETF to protect the IUsers in taking the lead of 
the technical governance evolution through an update of the 
IETF/WG/IANAPLAN Charter
- to managing our own protection ourselves in cooperation with the 
IETF, ICANN, ITU, USG, BRICS, SCO, EU, NTIA/FCC, etc. strategies.

This is why my appeal to the IESG will focus on the way the IESG 
should provide adequate guidance to the IETF/WG/IANAPLAN Chairs. The 
starting point of this appeal is, therefore, the ongoing reading of 
the "status quo" strategy sponsored by the Chairs, in opposition to 
my own reading of the IETF position expressed in the Charter, of 
which the implications have to be considered better (hence the 
endless debate on issues like iana.org).

This is going to give me more time:

- to extend my draft (now 
<http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.01.pdf>http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.01.pdf. 
Taking advantage from Olaf Kolkman remark on BCP 59).
- evaluate the consequences of the Nov 10 IETF/WG/IANAPLAN meeting.
- evaluate the consequences of the Nov 10 Putin-Xi Jinping meeting.
- evaluate the consequences of the ITU PP 14.
- evaluate the first feedback of my draft concerning the network 
master and master model and plug-ins.

I hope that this may eventually lead to a convergence between Eliot's 
Draft and mine. I am aware that it will most probably call for 
IESG/IAB/ISOC involvement since I am not permitted to directly 
discuss it at the [email-masked] last call level.

jfc

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 16:30:51 +0100

At 15:43 06/11/2014, 'Andrew Sullivan' wrote:
>Yet you apparently believe that the IETF can extort ICANN, which is 
>what is actually being proposed: they have property, and some are 
>proposing that they have to give it to us without compensation.

Andrew,

All this has actually been addressed by the NTIA (Karen Rose) and 
signed 14 years ago.
Please read my draft version 01. 
http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.01.pdf.
This is probably where the confusion introduced by Fiona Alexander comes from.

This is BCP 52. The problem is not with ICANN but with the IETF.
- RFC 3172 section 3 should be reminded to participants, WG Chairs, 
RFC authors, ADs
- RFC 3172 Section 5 to the IAB (e.g. Russ Housley Liaison statement 
of 2014/09/15 - https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1351).

Best
jfc

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 21:28:25 +0100

At 01:24 08/11/2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>The thing is, it is not, in any way, shape, manner, or form, a 
>response to the ICG RFP.

Absolutely correct.
Please tell me where ICG RFP is mentionned in this WG's Charter.
Richard made the point that this WG is to think as if it was ICANN. 
This is what I oppose. This WG is not ICANN (proof: it has no embedded lawyer).
http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.02.pdf 
is pertinent.

>>IAB/ICANN/NTIA RFC 3172 (BCP 52) 
>>https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3172.txt 
>><https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3172.txt>. In particular Section 5.

This is the response called both by the WG Charter and the ICG:

(1) we have an existing solution and the Charter wants status quo. We 
only have to internally generalize this solution to the multi-SDo 
multi-repository multi-stakeholder context acknowledged by IEEE, IAB, 
IETF, ISOC, W3C, NTIA, ITU (RFC 6852; March 14, 2014 statement; Busan)

(2) since we do not want to change that general solution we can only 
answer "no" to every demand for any specific change.

(3) our charter is therefore to consider the global changes that 
might require a change in the agreed existing general solution: no 
ICG request is formulated appropriately.

(4) possibly, in order to spur the IETF slowliness in internally 
implementing that solution, we might suggest the IESG/IAB to:

      - create a WG/ARPA to publish an RFC 3172bis in order to update 
the BCP 52
      - and organize a NonWG/ARPA mailing list to manage .arpa as per 
this BCP 52.

Best
jfc

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 21:14:04 +0100

At 18:12 08/11/2014, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>I have not gone through the document but I have a similar thought 
>about Jefsey's writeup. I feared it would attempt to address a lot 
>beyond scope; reading it and reconfirming my fears would be a great 
>deal for me. ;)

?
There are two topics.

1. the respect of the Charter, as per the reading of the Chairs.

2. the support of the internet users' technical needs as a result of 
the NTIA announcement, NETmundial meetings, ICANN strategy, resulting 
IGF, ITU and SCO ongoing debates and the MYCANN Plug-ins consequent 
projects and expected announcements.

As a member of this WG, and the Non-WG IUCG@IETF facilitator, my plan 
was to do two things after having carefully followed and participated 
to the WG debate:

1. to introduce an I_D as a community proposals the Chairs have 
committed to consider as per the Charter.
2. to introduce an appeal to the IESG for this WG to really consider 
what the IETF is to do in order to adjust to the transition.

The cut-off period has not permitted my Draft to be introduced as an 
I_D in due time. I, therefore, had to create a crash IUWG site where 
I published and continue to maintain the draft with a forming Libre 
small group of IUsers. The mails of Andrew, Miles, and you are clear 
enough; in spite of the Chair's commitment, and the NTIA demand for a 
multistakeholder approach, the intent does not seem to discuss it as 
a Libre IUser community contribution.

As a result,

1. my Draft 
http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.02.pdf 
no longer only focuse on what the IETF should do but what the IUWG 
will do to allow IUsers to match the US transition in an unstable 
situation of contested dominance - during a multistakeholder, 
multitechnology, multilinguistic, multirepository, and multilateral 
evolution of the World Digital Ecosystem. This includes the 
introduction of a separate IETF Draft on Monday responding to the 
WG/IANAPLAN Charter: how the IETF can protect the status quo and 
adequately respond to RFPs such as the one received from the IGC.

2. the young IUWG is forming and, therefore, still uncertain about my 
appeal, due to the lack of a joint appeal process in the RFC 6852 
context (the reason for my NTIA interrupted appeal to ISOC). It might 
be built as an appeal copied as a joint RFP to the other SDOs and 
affected WGs and coalitions.

jfc

>Cheers!
>sent from Google nexus 4
>kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>On 8 Nov 2014 01:24, "Miles Fidelman" 
><<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]> wrote:
>Jefsey,
>Sorry to be blunt, but it's been a long day....
>Actually, I HAVE read your draft.Â  The thing is, it is not, in any 
>way, shape, manner, or form, a response to the ICG RFP.Â  As someone 
>who spends most of may day job, writing proposals, my basic reaction 
>is to ignore a document that is unresponsive to the RFP.
>Beyond that, as a matter of general "style" - and a problem I 
>continue to have with the WG draft - is that documents that rely 
>heavily on cross references to other documents are incredibly 
>difficult to follow.
>Miles Fidelman
>Jefsey wrote:
>Seun, Richard, Miles, John,
>This WG calls for a few "iana.cool" brains. If you do not want to 
>read my draft (1) please at least read the IAB/ICANN/NTIA RFC 3172 
>(BCP 52) 
><https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3172.txt>https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3172.txt 
>Cheers.
>(1) 
><http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.01.pdf>http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.01.pdf 
>
>Â  Â  Â IMHO this is the one which will prevail as it is not NTIA, 
>nor SCO, nor EU, nor ICANN, nor ITU, nor NETmundial, etc. oriented. 
>Just interested in intelligent internet use capability.
>At 23:06 07/11/2014, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>Miles, it think you are referencing that url as if the operating 
>systems services are syncing off the <http://iana.org>iana.org 
><http://iana.org> site.
>If that domain changes today, it does not take anything other than a 
>update to reflect the new reference url does it?
>What would be disastrous is if there happens to be 2 authoritative 
>parameter source with different entries; as an example http 
>referenced as port 80 and as another port on the other site.
>How to avoid that is not just by locking up the name 
><http://iana.org>iana.org <http://iana.org> but by locking up to a 
>single source of authority.
>Cheers!
>sent from Google nexus 4
>kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>On 7 Nov 2014 22:42, "Miles Fidelman" 
><<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked] 
>Â  Â  David Conrad wrote:
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Miles,
>Â  Â  Â  Â  On Nov 6, 2014, at 6:19 AM, Miles Fidelman
>Â  Â  Â  Â  <<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
>Â  Â  Â  Â  <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  More specifically, I'm concerned with avoiding any
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  confusion or operational disruption in the event of
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  future conflicts among the parties involved in oversight,
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  management, and/or performance of the IANA functions -
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  particularly in the case where a transition of contractor
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  might occur on less then friendly terms.
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Under such situations, it seems at least possible, if not
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  likely, that litigation might ensue and/or that parties
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  might operate competing registries - causing operational
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  confusion at a minimum, and possibly more serious
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  disruptions to smooth operation of the net.
>Â  Â  Â  Â  We're talking about the protocol parameter registries, right?
>Â  Â  Â  Â  I'm honestly curious: could you describe the "serious
>Â  Â  Â  Â  disruptions to smooth operation of the net" or "operational
>Â  Â  Â  Â  confusion" that would occur in the event of future conflicts
>Â  Â  Â  Â  relating to the IANA trademark and/or <http://IANA.ORG>IANA.ORG
>Â  Â  Â  Â  <http://IANA.ORG> domain?
>
>Â  Â  Kind of depends on the degree to which various developers depend
>Â  Â  on the various registries published under <http://iana.org>iana.org
>Â  Â  <http://iana.org>, and perhaps on the degree to which anybody
>Â  Â  relies on automatic download of registry contents.
>Â  Â  For example, the /etc/services file in Debian includes this
>Â  Â  statement:
>Â  Â  #Updated from 
><http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers>http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers 
>
>Â  Â  <http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers>
>Â  Â  I expect other operating systems do similar things.Ã‚Â  A lot of
>Â  Â  systems could break, rather precipitously, if <http://iana.org>iana.org
>Â  Â  <http://iana.org> went offline, or the file were moved somewhere
>Â  Â  else, or the file were corrupted - particularly if it happened
>Â  Â  just before a major release cycle.
>Â  Â  To me, that would be a "serious disruption" or at the very least
>Â  Â  "operational confusion"
>Â  Â  Miles Fidelman
>Â  Â  --Â  Â  Â In theory, there is no difference between theory and 
>practice.
>Â  Â  In practice, there is.Ã‚Â  Ã‚ .... Yogi Berra
>Â  Â  _______________________________________________
>Â  Â  Ianaplan mailing list
>Â  Â  <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>Â  Â 
><https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan 
>
>Â  Â  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>
><mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
><<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>
>
>
>
>--
>In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>In practice, there is.Â  Â .... Yogi Berra
><mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]