Subject: Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] Where (I think) we're at and a final suggestion Re: Trial balloon: suggested text

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:46:42 +0100

At 15:03 20/11/2014, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>In other words, the current proposal, if understood as noted above, 
>does not preclude the strengthened legal and contractual measures 
>that Richard is calling for, it seems to leave the door open to 
>them. If I am wrong about that someone please correct me.

All this is based neither on the charter nor on reality. It is about 
contracts/understandings considered as protocols, by protocol 
engineers, i.e. on the basis of cooperative ends. Modern policy is 
based upon the opposite approach which is the precautionary principle.

Reality is:

- http://csis.org/files/publication/141117_Lewis.pdf
- 
http://sendsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Deterring-VNSA-in-Cyberspace-FINAL.pdf
- http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG877.pdf
   "Cyber attacks are possible only because systems have flaws".

As long as architecture is left to engineers who ignore what 
architectonics may mean, and do not make difference between cyber, 
digital and numeric, the world is in danger. Russ Housley has engaged 
two steps in the NTIA planned proper direction in calling for a 
secure internet and assuming control of ".arpa" were the two 
prerequistes. I hope this WG's Draft is not going to weaken them.

The next step is to make the IANA names, numbers, documentation, and 
protocol accessible under "http://iana.arpa".
Would the IAOC be unable to organize and finance it, we will ask the 
Libre's community to carry the job and, this way, insure the ICANN 
accountability to the multitude of the internet users.

jfc

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 18:20:17 +0100

In case I do not have to appeal, if we want to meet the Jan 15, 2015 
date, since it is likely that this WG will not change its mind and 
will not fullfil its charter, I also do.

Richard, I fully agree with you and the RIRs. The non-secure-protocol 
stack internet stability calls for a trilateral ICANN, IETF, RIRs 
contract. However,

1) you saw that this WG, in part due to the particular culture 
claimed bu its members, is not discussing contracts (based on 
skeptiscim) but protocols (based on cooperation). The faster we are 
finished with this misunderstanding, the faster we will be able to 
address the real world situation.

2) you may have more chances to get support at the IETF Last-Call 
(moreover I will not be here !)

3) the context of the new-secure-protocol-stack internet will become 
better known in the coming year. The common best interest is to delay 
the NTIA transition through clear political moves, that press and 
politicians understand. An IESG/IAB/ISOC appeal is an example of what 
is always possible and will be well identified.

jfc

At 17:33 21/11/2014, Eric Burger wrote:
>I do.
>
> > On Nov 21, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > Do you believe that is enough to move forward? I've seen quite a 
> lot of agreement.
> >
> > Jari
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ianaplan mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ianaplan mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan