Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> Mon, 24 August 2015 01:12 UTC

Return-Path: <jefsey@jefsey.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA351B2E7F for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.434
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xJThhs8oJzPP for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9FEA1B2E7E for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 251.47.14.81.rev.sfr.net ([81.14.47.251]:53686 helo=GHM-SAM.dot.dj) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <jefsey@jefsey.com>) id 1ZTgIy-0008OY-Qr; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:12:09 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 03:12:05 +0200
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>,Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
From: JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <1FA39989275F3D8A3608ADE8@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
References: <95236452-2600-473E-B326-8AB8242484B4@thinkingcat.com> <018901d0dc22$4efb3870$ecf1a950$@ch> <BAB634F7-2429-4C09-AAAF-96D47C78EB51@thinkingcat.com> <01a801d0dc24$531bab40$f95301c0$@ch> <55D74BF9.2090901@cisco.com> <020001d0dc2c$b5514ba0$1ff3e2e0$@ch> <D3394ED976549059B1694F5B@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <018e01d0ddbb$a75c47d0$f614d770$@ch> <1FA39989275F3D8A3608ADE8@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: intl+dot.dj/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Message-Id: <20150824011210.C9FEA1B2E7E@ietfa.amsl.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/5sIhbE4r3GVXyqbfQvgpqCg-WyA>
Cc: "'Ianaplan@Ietf.Org'" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 01:12:12 -0000

At 18:11 23/08/2015, John C Klensin wrote:
>I think the IETF should confine
>itself to "endorsing" parts of the proposal that are
>specifically consistent with our relationship as a customer of
>the IANA function and should be circumspect about anything else,
>especially things that could cloud that customer relationship or
>put agreements made as part of it in jeopardy.   I don't
>consider the new text an ideal way to make that distinction, but
>I don't have a better solution and it is probably adequate.

Dear John,

you understand my desillusion with the IAB/IETF. I have tried for 15 
years to defend the initial NTIA ballance making business and 
politics accountable to people and technology. I did it  in fighting 
for a technology being worth what people were entitled to expect for 
their catenet and their money. Including a reasonable OSI layer six. 
Today, the market of business/political global communities is 
supposed to decide of the technology and your last hope is that ICANN 
is fair with its IETF "customer".

I am sorry, this is not the kind of network that I deployed until my 
lab with its 17 millions of IP addresses (RFC 923) was closed by the 
NSA - and I kept working on. Experimenting within the limits of my 
non-profit entity's lack of budget. Now the technology evolution, and 
the Supreme Court, are permitting me to resume my work at low cost, 
at the proper stratum, with the same amount of resources I had in 
1977, and much more experience. Through the IUsers XLIBRE global 
community embryo. I wish them/us a better luck for the mankind,

I do not really see what the ICANN's IETF customer can really bring 
us more. I am sorry for that. The very month "they" made me close my 
Tymnet shop, "they" convened the first IETF meeting (filled with USG 
contractors). 30 years later-on this will be filled with ICANN 
contractors. From Google's positions vs. Oracle, and from Windows 
10's evaluations, I see that in 1986 public interest won over 
innovation, what seemed acceptable, but that in 2015 money wins overs 
public interest. This calls for some happy fews to give a more people 
friendly try.

Anyway, this is now domestic to the ICANN global community's VGN and 
of no real interest for the XLIBRE community.

I am quite sorry for you. However, nothing prevents you to share in 
the Technological Mutiny (TM)! We call it MutiTech, when technical 
reality is to take the lead over political concussion (cf. Fadie's 
friend Dilma).

Take care.

jfc
http://xlibre.net