Subject: Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] Proposed text reflecting IETF91 discussion

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:05:55 +0100

At 20:04 16/11/2014, Peterson, Jon wrote:
>Please, just let us resolve this - to us, relatively trivial 
>technical matter - to our own satisfaction.

Jon,

many of your points technically stand. But please remember that 
supposedly your own satisfaction is to make the internet run better, 
what  is something the Internet users appreciate.

This means that this WG's rough consensus appreciated by the Chairs 
is subject to the IETF last-call rough consensus, which is subject to 
the IESG decision which is subject to appeals which are subject to use.

The real issue is that the ultimate referent authority for IETF and 
ICANN appeals was the USG through the NTIA, most probably advised by 
the IETF rough consensus, and US industrial interests and that is 
what is transitionning.

- The question was raised by RFC 6852,
- then it was raised by the WCIT vote in Dubai
- then it was raised by Edward Snowden
- then it was raised by the Montevideo declaration
- then it was raised by the NTIA statement,
- then it was raised by the Geneva Davos NETmundial,
- then it was raised by President Obama a few days ago,
- then it was again raised by the IAB the next day.

You discuss issues related to a now ***obsolete/condemned*** Internet.

The internet we are interested in seeing properly redesigned, run and 
managed is an Internet you did not develop, says the IAB. It is a 
secure internet.

This is why we currently do not trust you. This WG is not about the 
ICG (show me the term in its Charter). It is about you making us to 
trust you are motivated in responsibly designing the internet we are 
promised. We certainly understand the difficulty and the Loc/ID 
missing presentation layer, etc. issues. And are ready to help you 
achieving the task; but do not start by ignoring, bashing or 
attacking us. This is counter productive and pushes us to do the job 
by ourselves, with our Govs, and to fork.

Implicitely the external world broad consensus (cf. RFC 6852) would 
be pleased if the referent was - at least temporarily - the IAB, what 
may not please ICANN. However, this consensus can only be temporary due to:

- the terms of the BCP 78, i.e. the internet licence which is not a 
CC license or public domain;
- the USG which wants to stay more equal than its 191 fellow governments.
- the technical solutions that will be found to make the internet 
secure (is this possible) or to build a secure internet.

Now, you can ignore me and my mails. I just send them to help and try 
to avoid the losses for many of you that a messy fork would 
represent. I/we fully understand that Neustar would be hurt by the 
secure internet DNS Class the Libre is planning to test, in the case 
it became a non-business equal open reality. However, it you really 
want to defend the Neustar interests, and the whole Naming ICANN 
"industry", please cooperate, try to find and document new trusted services.

We have been proposed a multistakeholder approach by the current 
oversight holder.
We have been proposed a secure internet design support by the 
architectural board.
We only see you discussing your own status-quo.

What do you want us to think. Even with the best good will?
Tell us, tell us ....

jfc

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 23:56:45 +0100

At 21:37 16/11/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>I think the minutes show, and the chairs' reactions indicate, that the
>views supporting the statements you are unhappy with having removed
>from the Internet Draft were in fact well exposed and discussed in the
>room.  The WG just didn't agree.  That happens; it's what "rough
>consensus" looks like.

"Sometimes, a show of hands can be useful; sometimes, it can be quite
damaging and result in terrible decisions.  Sometimes, using a device
like a "hum" can avoid those pitfalls; sometimes, it is just a poorly
disguised vote." (RFC 7282)

"We believe in rough consensus and running code".

Dear Andrew,
I am sure you realize that the minutes of the meeting room in Hawaii 
only concern a rough consensus of non-secure-internet designers. How 
many of them where Libre engineers footing their own T&L? This is not 
consensus, but "concensus", if you permit me the pun.

Now, since it seems it will be hard to reach a rough consensus before 
we have completed the whole appeal process, and that this XG's dbate 
is already between ICG members, the IUWG.NET's approach looks faster: 
to help study, document and develop an accepted running code.

This means a secure internet based upon a MYCANN plug-in.

Russ has declared the new internet has to be secure. Obama has 
decided the FCC was to make it neutral. It seems the transition has 
been settled and we just to have it completed.

We just need to complete and test the code as per ICANN/ICP-3 and 
submit it to the RFC 6852 global communities' competition for 
innovation. Will the ICANN, Google, Apple, USCC, Chinese, NSA, 
Russian, European, Libre, Civil Society, etc. MYCANN Plug-in be the 
more innovating and accepted one by the users?

Competition will tell!
The contest is open.

jfc

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:30:59 +0100

Dear Andrew,

Your analysis of the WG's attitudes is excellent!

This helps me a lot in explaining why I am "elsewhere" rather than in 
your scheme, why I think everyone is right, and where consensus is and why.

The IETF has an engineering culture, the IAB an architectural 
culture, and mine is difficult to follow for both. This is because it 
is an architectonical culture.

- Engineers work out detailed solutions within architectures;
- Architects choose global solutions that fit a common architectony;
- Architectonicians' job is to try to build an architectony, i.e. to 
comprehend and document how things work. This means that they are 
partly mathematicians, partly philosophers, partly politicians, etc. 
This is the Greek meaning of "archi", regarding what is below (and 
common to) everything. In particular due to cybernetics, logic, 
quantum physics, meshed networking, globalization, multilinguistics, 
multistakeholderism, etc. this is the intermultidisciplinarity of the 
"(g)locality problem".

Architectonics has dramatically progressed in the last 125 years and 
networking has contributed a lot (in particular in the agoric [meshed 
logic] way of thinking that addresses complexity). The target is to 
understand how our fractally deterministic chaos (nature, society, 
events, politics, groups, IETF decisions, etc.) works. E.g. how I 
obtained the RFC 4646 consensus I wanted.

This is called "SOC", self-organized criticality, studied from the 
Per Bak or Abelian sand pile model. 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abelian_sandpile_model>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abelian_sandpile_model. 
This should be conceptually linked to:
- the "n-body" issue of Poincaré
- the Catastrophe Theory of René Thom
- the metamaths  of Gregory Chaitin
- Jon Postel's principle of robustness (RFC 1122)
- Randy Bush's and David Meyer's principle of simplicity (RFC 3439)
to lead to what one might call the "Leibnitz Principle": "the 
simplest the premise, the richest the emergence". E.g.: the 
bit/big-bang => the universe.

This means that the target is to find and address the IETF's NTIA 
transition "least common factor". This is what I am interested in. It 
looks like the status quo, it smells like the status quo but it is 
not the status quo.

I think this is nearly completed already (if an inadequate draft does 
not confuse everything – in that case it will be rebuilt outside of 
the IETF). On Sept. 30, 2014, IAB has been recorded in the IANA as 
the .arpa TLD manager. In order to complete the 2000 NTIA prepared 
transition and best settle the IETF position, IAB only has to 
register "iana.arpa" and make it parked at "iana.org" and use it. 
Everything else will follow in due time.

IAB has no army to enforce its positions. It has the .arpa TLD where 
it is sovereign. These are its "Pope's divisions of Stalin".

jfc

At 22:37 16/11/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>I think this is exactly right.  But I think part of the controversy
>may be that some disagree about the consequences.  Let me
>describe two caricature positions, neither of which represents any
>actual person AFAICT, to suggest where the poles of disagreement are
>in my opinion.
>
>Some of us, it appears, think that this is an extremely delicate
>matter for the protocol parameters registries as well as for other
>registries.  It appears to me that those who think this feel strongly
>that it is important now to arrange the adoption of several
>provisions.  It appears that those holding this position think that
>the existing arrangements are open to negotiation in order to achieve
>some of these other ends.
>
>Others of us, it appears, think that the existing arrangements for the
>protocol parameters registries are perfectly adequate, and the only
>goal here is to do every possible thing to ensure that those
>arrangements don't change an iota as a result of the transition.  It
>appears to me that those who think this feel strongly that there are
>no new provisions to be made, though there might be things that
>currently follow as a result of the NTIA-ICANN agreement; those
>provisions need to be documented.  It appears that those holding this
>position think that there is nothing more important than avoiding
>opening any existing agreement for any kind of negotiation.
>
>Now, having drawn those cartoon versions of the positions, it seems to
>me that most of us fall somewhere in between these views.  It also
>seems to me that the closer one is to the first of these, the more one
>might be uncomfortable with some of the changes from -02 to -03.  My
>own impression is that the WG mostly leans toward the second end of
>the spectrum.  If that's correct, then a couple things fall out.
>
>First, "How do we understand the transition's significance and
>implications?"  Under this view, there is not a great significance,
>and the implications are matters of detail (important detail, but just
>details all the same).  Second, "What can we do to transition the
>process without screwing it up?"  Under this view, the answer is to do
>as little as possible, because the existing arrangements are good and
>working, and we have always believed that the main protection to the
>protocol parameters registries lay with the IETF's established (and
>sometimes used) ability to manage the publication of its registries as
>it sees fit.
>
>Best regards,

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:22:26 +0100

At 19:42 17/11/2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>At the risk of sounding like a broken record...
>
>This brings us back to:
>- the RFP is largely about contractual issues (what replaces the 
>NTIA contract), and,
>- the requirement for open process
>- if this is an IAOC matter, then what is the open process for 
>discussing things that are in the IAOC purview

Miles,
this seems odd to have to explain that when dealing with network 
engineers, but what we need is a consensual cultural network among 
the IETF participants about what we want to see achieved. Then things 
will work alone being intellectually "meshed", i.e. understood in the 
same way. Otherwise things will disband, both at the internet 
governance and at the technology planes.

What all this debate shows is the same problem the IETF faces again 
and again. The IETF is to make the internet work better. What does 
"better" means? Does it means directed by ICANN, or Govs, or the 
people's multitude, perfect end to end non-protected transport, 
confidential traffic? Who is accountable to who (for dogmatic but 
also for technical reasons)?

jfc