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

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 18:50:30 +0100

At 16:28 16/11/2014, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>That's utter nonsense.

Dear Stephen,

let keep calm, please. Please understand why it makes far more sense 
than you seem to feel. I just hope you will bear with me for the 
length of this mail.

I am speaking here in copying the IUCG@IETF, i.e. as an IETF User.  So,
- it will be clear I am not "one of you". Actually "you" banned me for that.
- the IANA plus its complementary and missing sites are your 
interface with us.

What I can say is that we are unpleased with the IANA current venue 
for two simple reasons:
1) you never consider what we would need to see, only what you want 
to say there. This may not be a good way to manage an interface.
2) you only contracted with ICANN and we are not pleased with that 
monopoloy because it does not respect the many multistakeholder 
rights of our RFC 6852 global communities.

We have learned to live with this. We accept that if your whole thing 
could be better for us, it is a great success, and has resulted in a 
"huge bounty" (cf. RFC 6852).

However, we tend to identify both issues as reverberating the NTIA oversight
- (1) through the USCC/industry procurement/Anglo-Saxon cultural 
proximity for the IETF,
- (2) its contractual renewal live/death power on ICANN.

We are offered two serious/important responses by authorities we respect:
1) the NTIA transition to the FCC, by Strickling/Obama
2) the IAB statement on the technology transition toward a 
Confidential Internet, by Russ Housley.

Both may have a fundamental impactd on the quality of the IETF 
deliveries and on our daily digital operations.
This means that we are pleased but also that we have important concerns when
- we observe through this WG's debate that you only consider "your" 
interest in maintaining your own operational status-quo.
- while we look for an innovative, security oriented, steady 
technology development and a better control on our digital operations.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day we are those who pay, nationally 
vote for our Govs, and incidently develop our own technology and run 
our operations.i.e. the IANA Users.
1. We understand you do not like our Govs, we understand we are not 
much related to the Libre. This was more and more reciprocal 
***until*** both the USG and the IAB made their two major steps 
ahead. Now with NETmundial and the architectural possibilities being 
open by the offer of cooperation of the IAB, we are ready to 
consider/cooperate for the better.
2. As you say we see our own face of the interface, and we may be 
wrong. In such a case it is up to you to help us, as we try to help 
you in spending time working in here. Not to tell us "we know better, 
don't disrupt".

Please do not keep us in the situation where we feel in agreement 
with the NTIA and IAB, and as result, in opposition with you and (due 
to that) with ICANN.
Would it not be amazing if you made us to chose ICANN between "you" and them!

jfc

>It's entirely obvious that there are a number of people on this
>list (yourself included) who are coming at this with a different
>viewpoint from the many people on this list that I know are very
>much involved in writing RFCs that make changes to IANA protocol
>parameters.
>
>Those people (again yourself included) have I think provided good
>inputs in various ways, I'm sure the editors could provide all the
>details, but on this specific topic seem to me to be just wrong
>and continually missing the point that the IETF does not need to
>get all lawyered up to provide the ICG with the IETF's proposal
>or feedback.
>
>ISTM that you are attempting to cast doubt on the process just
>because you and a few others are in the rough on one topic. And
>as I said above, that's utter nonsense. In open processes like
>the IETF's you just don't always get what you want, no matter
>how often you (or Richard IMO) metaphorically try to throw the
>toys out of the cradle.
>
>S.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ianaplan mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan