Subject: Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] Protocol parameter registries and the ARPA TLD

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:05:43 +0100

At 20:34 13/11/2014, John C Klensin wrote:
>If you dislike the current arrangements and structure or wish to
>challenge the legitimacy of NTIA's current role and hence the
>mechanisms by which they wish to consider changing it, I think
>that is fine (whether I agree or not).   But that is a different
>discussion from the one before this WG and you should probably
>find a different and more appropriate place to have it.

Dear John,

this is the IETF. What I (and activists, gurus, or politicians) may 
***think*** or be familiar with is of strickly no interest. What 
counts is the way things ***are*** and what ***users*** will think, 
demand and pay for. And what laws and contracts permit. The points I 
raised (whatever I may think about them) are things one may argue 
over the impact, but not about the reality.

The purpose of this WG is not to subjectively guess, hope, wish, 
think, etc. it is to objectively plan how to make sure that - 
whatever the users, money, industries, Govs and other stakeholders 
will do - the IETF will  still be able to best contribute to the real 
whole world's TCP/IP oriented needs, so the internet keeps working better.

I do not see that plan being discussed, analyzed, and documented.

This means that your suggestion to discuss it at a "different and 
more appropriate place" may become a necessity

However, unless we want to take the ***risk to fragment the network 
middle layers (end to end)***, such a (or several)  WG replacement or 
IETF fork need to be:

(1) triggered by this WG (it seems this is going to be a non full 
consensus the case),
(2) reviewed by an IETF Last Call,
(3) and confirmed by the IESG,
(4) the IAB,
(5) and then ISOC to make sure everyone is in argeement.

The NTIA has decided it could not delay such a risk any more, has 
decided to engage in its initially decided 2000 strategy to prevent 
it, and asked stakeholders a plan, this WG is to contribute from an 
IETF point of view (cf. Charter).

I supposed all of us wished and responsibly wish (cf. the RFC 3935 
definition) to keep this risk under realistic and reasonable control. 
Unfortunately, this is not what I observe.

I will carefully review the version 03 of the proposed draft, but I 
fear I will be obliged to oppose it as supporting/discussing only one 
strategy, based upon an incomplete assessment of the reality (we 
mutually documented it), that/what IMHO contradicts our Charter and 
is neither in the best interest of the IETF, nor of the technology, 
of the users and therefore of humanity.

This is worrying.

jfc