Re: [Ianaplan] Transition proposal for naming-related functions

JFC Morfin <> Fri, 01 May 2015 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 967C21B2DB9 for <>; Fri, 1 May 2015 12:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.335
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.335 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MIdcd2-xTOLP for <>; Fri, 1 May 2015 12:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05A081B2DE1 for <>; Fri, 1 May 2015 12:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:3801 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <>) id 1YoGG6-0008AO-B8 for; Fri, 01 May 2015 12:05:58 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 21:05:53 +0200
To: "" <>
From: JFC Morfin <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_3780731==.ALT"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id: user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Message-Id: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Transition proposal for naming-related functions
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 19:06:05 -0000

At 19:09 29/04/2015, Jefsey wrote:
>At 18:44 29/04/2015, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>The proposal mentions the possibility of IAB representation on the 
>>CSC in its capacity as registry operator for .arpa.

Dear Alissa,

The point is not for the IAB to be in the CSC, as one inter pares (a 
registry as any other registries), but that the IAB - as the IAB - is 
acknowledged and given genuine control capacity over the internet 
consistency. We know they do not want it (cf. the IANAPLAN document, 
and the I*Chairs summary). However, no one, I am afraid, in the 
world, except the vanity registries and the so-called registrars, is 
interested in ICANN if ICANN does not give at least some feeling it 
can be trusted.

That trust can only come from those that techies can trust, i.e. 
ISPs. An ISP will only trust RIRs and RFCs. Since Jari Arkko has said 
the IETF will follow what the NTIA decides, most of the Sates will 
progressively revert to ITU: mostly because multilateralism is 
clearer than multistakeholderism. Lead users will go for a Libre 
approach, now that the IESG was unable to use my appeal to federate 
clear responses (unless IAB can change do it).

This is why the only global I*body left that everyone will not object 
to is the IAB. If ICANN gives the feeling that it does not respect 
the IAB as being the "unique" trustable core of the Internet 
community, the last entity left will be the NRO. Is it prepared for 
the task of replacing the NTIA? Then it will be the FCC (for the US, 
and vassals), Google (money), BRICS (national power), and Libre 
(local/individual capacity).

This will lead to multiple "fail-safe plans for the net" versions. 
This will be managed as prepared by RFC 6852. The question is: what 
has RFC 6852 prepared? The response has been given by the IAB: 
If I read the IAB correctly: nothing.

I am afraid I am not wrong.