Re: [Ianaplan] CWG proposal up for public comment

Jefsey <jefsey@jefsey.com> Fri, 24 April 2015 15:48 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 06C651B3095 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.135
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.135 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] autolearn=no
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 Ml2JWbZukWKV for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:48:17 -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 78A0F1B3086 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 251.47.14.81.rev.sfr.net ([81.14.47.251]:18800 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <jefsey@jefsey.com>) id 1Ylfpt-0000Rq-TM; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:48:14 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:48:10 +0200
To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>,ianaplan@ietf.org
From: Jefsey <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6hURbLC46-1QMPKKJ_PnhJOoa2o86pc8m9M4JG6jc2_PQ@mail.g mail.com> <20150424140831.GF709@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <20150423133805.GB17594@mx2.yitter.info> <20150424135242.192501B2FE2@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAD_dc6hURbLC46-1QMPKKJ_PnhJOoa2o86pc8m9M4JG6jc2_PQ@mail.gmail.com> <20150423133805.GB17594@mx2.yitter.info> <20150424135245.58AED106B0@mx2.yitter.info> <20150424140831.GF709@mx2.yitter.info>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_891344316==.ALT"
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: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Message-Id: <20150424154815.78A0F1B3086@ietfa.amsl.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/BUL3OfNrOMU-GAmhZt7KZPMP0YU>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] CWG proposal up for public comment
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:48:19 -0000

At 16:07 24/04/2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>Hi Jefsey,
>I understand its a proposal by the names community only and not the 
>ICG proposal
>
>Interesting how there is no mention of the OIO relations. (Other 
>IANA Operators).
>jfc

At 16:08 24/04/2015, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>I'm not sure what you mean, but if you mean other registries for
>protocol parameters I'd expect that to be out of scope for the names
>community.
>
>What other IANA operators are there for the names community?


My point is addressed in the questions of my appeal the IESG has not 
considered necessary to address. What I consider as increasingly 
disturbing and whish to see approched in the best manner  (I try to 
adopt a median position acceptable to most) in my IAB appeal.

Let say that, independently from the political bargains that commands 
the transition plan, I wish to keep as stable internet for every of 
us, however it is likely it will not be the same one (because - cf. 
RFC 6852 - it will include at least two "global community" coalitions 
: those who consider they are bound by NTIA and FCC 
positions/decisions and those who dont).

Each of these coalitions will necessary have a few (hopefully) 
different visions. This will translate into the need for them to have 
their own version of the IANA. One should be managed as an ICANN 
affiliate and the other is still open. IMHO two other ones would make 
sense: one by ITU and one by the Libre. (I purposely use the term 
Libre, and "Relationnels Libres" in French to make clear it is not 
the open source, but an open network approach which corresponds to 
the  Vint Cerf IEN 48 objective second montivation. This 
ICANN(PTI)/ITU/Libre IANA Operators would represent the states (ITU), 
business (ICANN) and civil society (Libre) approches and permit some 
of the multistakeholderism both NTIA and ITU desire. I suppose that 
the Libre community is young enough for accepting that its desired 
omnistakeholderism can be delayed, as long as this is the way it will 
internally proceed.

This scheme, as eventually devised by Vint in July 1978, is the one I 
engaged into in 1977 with Tymnet and some European PTT and the French 
government plan (Transpac and Minitel) prevented us to merge with 
Louis Pouzin's Cyclade. So, my interest is in making sure that - 
whatever the States (US, Europe, BRICS) may do, negociate, fight, 
etc. the civil society may keep a stable service eith from PTI and/or 
from Libre, as I tested it through the Dot-Root community project 
(along ICANN still valide ICP/3 testing terms) 13 years ago.

The scheme I campaign for - and this is why I stayed with the IETF 
for all these years, as well as opposing some of the Unicode 
consortium influence, (while most of the Libre and State oriented 
people did not) - is one I think acceptable on both sides and 
possibly also on the third one (if ITU is to enter the game). It 
could even accomodate more new commers (probably a small galaxy of 
them if people feel it is not correctly planned). It is the 
experimentation scheme, along ICANN experimentation rules. 
Permissionless innovation/projects as long as they keep being 
experimental first.

In here, and in my appeal, I made clear that I will experiment the 
DNS CLASS "FL" (for Free/Libre) along with the principles documented 
by the DNSA. So far, this makes little difference with the IANA PTI 
Version, but it will help keeping peacefull the varions CLASS "IN" 
backup solutions and the support of the various "MYCANN" 
configurations or plug-ins. IMHO, if they do not foresee some 
fighting, many would be candidate will drop interest.

Obviously the most significant jurisdictionnal disagreements or 
extensions will probably happen in the naming area. This is why I 
think the ICANN "name community" is the predominant contributor, also 
because ICANN is perceived as the name-space commercial hijacker by 
many States and Civil/Local society members. And eventually because 
it is the sole interlocutor the NTIA considers in its announcement. 
The NTIA only considers the DNS. ICANN considers the IANA.

It will also be a way to test ICANN. If it will considers its peers 
as equals; and if it wants or do not want to respect a 
multistakeholder approach for itself, or it considers that the TLDs 
and RIRs are the stakeholders, and it is itself the Queen of Borgs.

All this is in five months now.
jfc